A Pagan Speaks: Diversity

[Heathen Dawn]

Scratch a hard sciences student and you’re bound to find out that one of the main reason he has no patience for the soft sciences is their inherent fuzziness, uncertainty and multiplicity of truths. Hard sciences are where a sweeping, all-encompassing verdict can be given concerning issues. In mathematics, the hardest of them all, 1+1=2 is proven, true for all and undisputable.

Some religions try to be like the hard sciences in their modus vivendi. For example, among certain Christians there is a desire to nail down the answers to the issues as surely and strongly and certainly as 1+1=2: “if you believe X, then you go to heaven, but if you believe Y, then you go to hell.”. Or in Judaism and Islam there are very specific explanations to the effect that action X pleases God and action Y nullifies the validity of the pilgrimage and so on. Those specifications are given just as surely as a chemist explains that mixing sodium hydroxide with hydrochloric acid gives table salt.

Paganism is different. It was already quite different in the past, and it’s even more different in our day and age. Paganism is like the soft sciences—many gods, many ways, many truths, many shades between the extremes, nothing set in stone, nothing absolutely certain, and everything flows (truth is fluid). Senator Symmachus, in the 4th century CE, articulated the difference in his answer to Christian bishop Ambrose: “it is not possible to attain to such a great secret by [only] one road” (uno itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande secretum). The whole truth cannot be gleaned from a book alone as Protestant Christians and Muslims say, and not from science alone as naturalists say. And the attempt to find an overriding, all-encompassing, “one size fits all” truth is misguided. Personal truth is respected, nay, cherished: to have found one’s gods or one’s ritual method or one’s body of magical practice is the goal, and only the individual can do it for himself, not any other person for him.

But, there is trouble in paradise…

There are too many (I think even one is too many, but there’s a lot more than that) people in the pagan scene who are forgetful of this basic affinity of paganism with the soft sciences and incorporate the methodology of the hard sciences into their thinking. Namely, they assert that their way of doing things is the good one, the right one, the mature one, the serious one (etc, you name it) for all pagans.

There are those who say all pagans should embrace the shadow aspects of life as well as the light ones. There are those who say all pagans should support radical feminism and the loosening of all sexual inhibitions. There are those who say the theology of the Goddess and the God (ditheism) is unpagan. There are those who say all pagans should base their religious practices upon information gained from the best of scholarly research. There are those who say all pagans should have unreserved love for nature. There are those who say anyone who gets spiritual inspiration from the written word can’t call themselves pagan (I was guilty of that one). There are those who say paganism is necessarily about gaining knowledge, in the form of the divine mysteries (as opposed to, for example, deriving pleasure from the personal relationship with the deities).

In the fuzzy worldview of the pagan umbrella, there is room for every one of those factions: a pagan can be a balanced practitioner or a black-wearing goth or a white-lighter; a hard polytheist, a soft polytheist, a ditheist, an atheist, even a monotheist; a meticulous academic or a freelancing follower of one’s personal experiences and inclinations; a person who leaves the city for life in a village, closest possible to nature, or a techno-shaman; a person whose shelf is filled with books like the Upanishads and Daodejing, or whose shelf is filled with herbs and potions and amulets; and a seeker of the knowledge of the mysteries akin to the Zen masters, or a seeker of the pleasure of intimacy akin to the Christian pietists. All those have an equal place under the pagan umbrella. All are true, all are good.

But the umbrella itself is made of diversity. That attitude of the hard sciences, that desire to state an undisputable truth for all people just as surely as 1+1=2, is the one thing that paganism cannot brook. The one thing that goes against the very heart of paganism. It’s perfectly OK to say the other’s path is not to your taste; but when you say the other’s path is not good, as a sweeping statement, objective reality, true for all, undebatable, then you should ask yourself if you’re not in the wrong religion. Or the wrong university faculty, for that matter.

Blessed be.
Heathen Dawn

[JazzDragon]

Hey - THat was really good!

But I always wondered - Why do people use the word pagan?
Merriam Webster defines it as :
"1 : HEATHEN (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heathen+)1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person"

Basically its a term that means you aren't following someones religion and you are bad, s'why i like to use Wiccan. THough i think even that i dont like to use. Because to me, all religions are getting at the same thing. But we won't get into that...

But it is true, i was on one thread (not here) that said something like "You arent a Wiccan unless you have read the book of...and know all the [X amount] rules..."
Woa. Thats wrong.
So giddy up good for you, i appreciate the post. Being a lazy witch (ok, Christian/Buddhist/Witch) i appreciate the reprieve from the over-analyzing of the bible (i dont understand it all!!).

Anyway, thank you for the post, it lightens my heart that I am not the only one!
More tolerance all around, hear hear!

[tmancour]

Very eloquently written. And not the first time I have seen this arguement.

I would contend that the emergence of Neo-Paganism (and yes, that's what it is . . . because that's what we call it) is in part a theological response to the failures of the Abrahamic faiths, particularly Christianity. One of the primary features of Christian theology, from a humanistic perspective, is the idea of compassionate forgiveness. Needless to say, this is an area which, in practice, Christianity has fallen far short. Between this lack and the Christian tendancy towards moral absoluteism, it has driven away much of the folks who have discovered Paganism, which proposes moral relativism backed by personal responsibility and Tolereance.

Forgiveness is not a central tenant of Pagan theology (mostly -- there are exceptions) but Tolerance is. I've said here before: Pagans tend to be as tolerant as Christians are forgiving.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[Heathen Dawn]

I would contend that the emergence of Neo-Paganism (and yes, that's what it is . . . because that's what we call it) is in part a theological response to the failures of the Abrahamic faiths, particularly Christianity.

I would hope not. I would like our religions to stand on their own tenets and merits rather than be defined negatively, as a reaction to something.

One of the primary features of Christian theology, from a humanistic perspective, is the idea of compassionate forgiveness. Needless to say, this is an area which, in practice, Christianity has fallen far short. Between this lack and the Christian tendancy towards moral absoluteism, it has driven away much of the folks who have discovered Paganism, which proposes moral relativism backed by personal responsibility and Tolereance.

The failings of Christianity can be expounded upon for ages and ages … I did just that in the past, and it only left me with a heartbroken feeling (of having wasted my time concentrating on the bad). But if you look past the salvation scheme, the afterlife system, the fire insurance proposal, there are in Christianity what I find to be treasures of deep spirituality. There is, for example, the notion that the deity is personal and can be, in fact needs to be, intimately known. It’s that splendid tenet of Christianity that I’ve made the heart of my own pagan path, and I’m not ashamed to admit it. Of course, this means that my flavour of paganism is markedly different than that of, say, a pagan path focussed on gaining enlightenment and secret knowledge, which would be more similar to the meditations of the Zen masters. The beauty I see in pagan diversity is that it has room in it for both of those widely-differing flavours. I like this freedom from the tyranny of all-consuming, true-for-all declarations of objective reality, the freedom of recognising that different paths are due to different tastes and to each their own.

[tmancour]

I would hope not. I would like our religions to stand on their own tenets and merits rather than be defined negatively, as a reaction to something.


Which is why I said "in part". The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Pagans in America and Europe were raised Christian or Jewish. While I wholeheartedly believe that Paganism has a rock-solid base of theologically valid tenants and excellent merits, we cannot get away from the fact that part of the impetus behind the Neo-Pagan Rennisance is a reaction to the failures of Christianity -- just as the rise of Christianity was in part a response to the failures of Paleo-Paganism. Both religions are inherently syncretic (as indeed most are) and one of the frustrations I have encountered are Pagans who dislike acknowlegeing this important fact. I believe it in no way diminishes the importance and merits of Paganism, but culturally speaking most Pagans were raised Christian, and understanding that is IMO an important factor in the development of our religion. But your point is well-taken.


The failings of Christianity can be expounded upon for ages and ages … I did just that in the past, and it only left me with a heartbroken feeling (of having wasted my time concentrating on the bad). But if you look past the salvation scheme, the afterlife system, the fire insurance proposal, there are in Christianity what I find to be treasures of deep spirituality. There is, for example, the notion that the deity is personal and can be, in fact needs to be, intimately known. It’s that splendid tenet of Christianity that I’ve made the heart of my own pagan path, and I’m not ashamed to admit it.


Nor should you. Of course, this theological concept is not unique to Christianity by any means. Personally, the ideals that I have most retained from Christianity are those dealing with "love thy neighbor" and the recognition of a universal brotherhood of Man. But unlike Christians, I see these as ideals, not commandments, and I don't let them get in the way of living my life. Of course, neither do most Christians.



Of course, this means that my flavour of paganism is markedly different than that of, say, a pagan path focussed on gaining enlightenment and secret knowledge, which would be more similar to the meditations of the Zen masters. The beauty I see in pagan diversity is that it has room in it for both of those widely-differing flavours. I like this freedom from the tyranny of all-consuming, true-for-all declarations of objective reality, the freedom of recognising that different paths are due to different tastes and to each their own.

Exactly. I would even take it further, as mere tolerance and rejection of moral absoluteism and objective reality are not enough, in my opinion, to base a complete religious system on. I beleive that Paganism offers an opportunity for the individual to declare and act upon a personal responsibility, rather than lay all blame and priase for their lives on a deity. I feel that Paganism offers an orthopractic religion (religion of practice) as opposed to the orthodoxic religions (religion of belief), which suits the more sophisticated modern mindset. Which leads to the biggest advantage I see in paganism: the opportunity to jettison Faith (absolute belief without proof) as a central theological tenant in preference to Wisdom (knowing to do the right thing at the right time). Between personal responsibility and right action we have fertile ground in which to grow. I'm also a big fan of the return of Goddess spirituality and much that goes with it, but that's a slightly different matter.

Arion the Blue

[Heathen Dawn]

I feel that Paganism offers an orthopractic religion (religion of practice) as opposed to the orthodoxic religions (religion of belief), which suits the more sophisticated modern mindset.

I think only Protestant Christianity and Pure Land Buddhism are purely orthodoxic religions. Most religions have various degrees of orthodoxy and orthopraxy mixed in them. Judaism is much more orthopraxic than orthodoxic, but I can’t practice it, because I don’t believe its truth-claims.

Which leads to the biggest advantage I see in paganism: the opportunity to jettison Faith (absolute belief without proof) as a central theological tenant in preference to Wisdom (knowing to do the right thing at the right time).

I understand the appeal of doing without faith in our day and age, and certainly there’s a lot of pressure upon modern man to jettison faith. But that’s not my style, not my flavour of paganism. I definitely like faith and I think it’s a good thing and I use it. Of course, I wouldn’t be a practitioner now were it not for my experiences, but faith came before that, to take the first steps and trust that they would yield results, and faith comes after that, to hold that the experiences are of real things and not hallucinations of the brain.

[seer]

Paganism is different. It was already quite different in the past, and it’s even more different in our day and age. Paganism is like the soft sciences—many gods, many ways, many truths, many shades between the extremes, nothing set in stone, nothing absolutely certain, and everything flows (truth is fluid).

So is it absolutely certain that here are many gods, many ways, many truths, and many shades? Is that set in Stone?

[betzerg]

So is it absolutely certain that here are many gods, many ways, many truths, and many shades? Is that set in Stone?

Don't we see in the heirachy of the gods in paganism the same kind of bickering and confusion we see in the human race itself. What happens when these "truths" contridict each other? The fruits of a religion are seen in the actions of it's adherents.

Honestly, the pagans that I know dislike any concept of law or "order" and choose to bash those who do. They flaunt free sexual expression and seem to take "pride" in being "different and off the beaten path" so to speak.

Judaism, on the other hand...believes in order and continuity created by ONE G-d. The purpose of man is to help G-d repair the earth "tikkun Olam" by act of charity and good deeds (I don't see much in the way of "Pagan Homeless shelters"..or a "pagan food pantry") They acknowledge that all those who choose to do what is "good" have a place in the world to come.

If there are no absolutes created by ONE G-d (honestly you don't find any absolutes in the god of pagans...they are as arbitrary as man) then either position is up for grabs. But if ONE G-d supreme over all other gods exists...then the pagans search for "Truth" if honest and sincere and not based on rebellion and self-endulgence...should lead to finding this ONE TRUE G-D.

My prayer is that truth will triumph in the hearts of those who seek it!

Shalom,

BETZER

And while truth may be fluid...it should always be flowing in the same direction
....even fluid can become stagnated if it's not going anywhere!

[technomage]

(I don't see much in the way of "Pagan Homeless shelters"..or a "pagan food pantry")

Such facilities require a more extensive financial infrastructure than most Pagan organizations have access to. However, many Pagans work with existing shelters, foodbanks, and other charitable organizations. "Tikkun Olam" is also an important part of our faith ... if not by that name, as most of us don't know Hebrew.

[seer]

Don't we see in the heirachy of the gods in paganism the same kind of bickering and confusion we see in the human race itself. What happens when these "truths" contridict each other? The fruits of a religion are seen in the actions of it's adherents.

Honestly, the pagans that I know dislike any concept of law or "order" and choose to bash those who do. They flaunt free sexual expression and seem to take "pride" in being "different and off the beaten path" so to speak.

Judaism, on the other hand...believes in order and continuity created by ONE G-d. The purpose of man is to help G-d repair the earth "tikkun Olam" by act of charity and good deeds (I don't see much in the way of "Pagan Homeless shelters"..or a "pagan food pantry") They acknowledge that all those who choose to do what is "good" have a place in the world to come.

If there are no absolutes created by ONE G-d (honestly you don't find any absolutes in the god of pagans...they are as arbitrary as man) then either position is up for grabs. But if ONE G-d supreme over all other gods exists...then the pagans search for "Truth" if honest and sincere and not based on rebellion and self-endulgence...should lead to finding this ONE TRUE G-D.

My prayer is that truth will triumph in the hearts of those who seek it!

Shalom,

BETZER

And while truth may be fluid...it should always be flowing in the same direction
....even fluid can become stagnated if it's not going anywhere!

Amen. And they seem to embrace spiritual ignorance. Nothing is true. Nothing is more correct or right. It's just spiritual relativism...

[seer]

But the umbrella itself is made of diversity. That attitude of the hard sciences, that desire to state an undisputable truth for all people just as surely as 1+1=2, is the one thing that paganism cannot brook. The one thing that goes against the very heart of paganism. It’s perfectly OK to say the other’s path is not to your taste; but when you say the other’s path is not good, as a sweeping statement, objective reality, true for all, undebatable, then you should ask yourself if you’re not in the wrong religion. Or the wrong university faculty, for that matter.

I'am not sure what this means. If a pagan believes he aquires power through human sacrifice are we merely to say that this path is not to our taste?

[technomage]

Amen. And they seem to embrace spiritual ignorance. Nothing is true. Nothing is more correct or right. It's just spiritual relativism...

What's better ... false certainty or honest ambiguity?

Oh, how silly of me: I forgot. Seer's certainty is never false--and any evidence to the contrary is just specious rumor.

Go play your games elsewhere, Seer.

[Heathen Dawn]

Thank you for your bits of the world-renowned Christian “love”, seer and betzerg.

Now … I’ve got better things to do in my life than waste my time here.

[seer]

What's better ... false certainty or honest ambiguity?

Oh, how silly of me: I forgot. Seer's certainty is never false--and any evidence to the contrary is just specious rumor.

Go play your games elsewhere, Seer.

No Justin, I will not go play my games elsewhere. And if you want to embrace spiritual ignorance that's fine with me...

[seer]

Thank you for your bits of the world-renowned Christian “love”, seer and betzerg.

Now … I’ve got better things to do in my life than waste my time here.

There was nothing "unloving" in what we said. Just asking questions, and presenting our beliefs. Which I guess is ok for you to do, but not for us to do... So who are the ones with the closed minds?

[technomage]

No Justin, I will not go play my games elsewhere.

Oh, I forgot--refraining from playing games with other people would indicate that you had some respect for them. But you don't respect anyone.

And if you want to embrace spiritual ignorance that's fine with me...

We both embrace spiritual ignorance, Seer. I'm just a bit more honest about it.

[seer]

Oh, I forgot--refraining from playing games with other people would indicate that you had some respect for them. But you don't respect anyone.

Justin, you are the one that suggested I was playing games. BTW - I have love and respect for all men. But not for all beliefs,they are not all equal. There is a difference - one you would do well to learn...

We both embrace spiritual ignorance, Seer. I'm just a bit more honest about it.

No Justin I do not embrace spiritual ignorance. I embrace our Lord and Savior - Christ Jesus...

[technomage]

Justin, you are the one that suggested I was playing games.

Not correct, Seer. By your own statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1182805&postcount=106), you "play" with those you disagree with.

BTW - I have love and respect for all men. But not for all beliefs,they are not all equal. There is a difference - one you would do well to learn...

Seer, "playing" with one's opponents is, to the absolute best of my understanding, a form of dishonesty. Now, if you do not intend it as such, I profoundly apologize ... but that's where it stands. You were (again, to the best of my understanding) dishonest with me several times in the thread I linked to above, and I frankly do not trust you or your assertions.

As things stand, I would not trust you to understand what having "love and respect for all men" is. Based on your actions, it seems that "contempt" is more accurate.

No Justin I do not embrace spiritual ignorance. I embrace our Lord and Savior - Christ Jesus...

If you loved Jesus, you would do His will--which, last I understood, didn't include games of dishonest rhetoric.

Now, let me bring this conversation back to HD's original topic--I do disagree with im, in that I feel that one can say "Your path is wrong" when that path leads you to harm yourself or others. And I include dishonesty as harm. Seer, the only God you have embraced is your own pride--and that pride leads you to treat others as lesser than you are.

Worshipping your pride is wrong, Seer: thus, your path is wrong.

[seer]

Not correct, Seer. By your own statement, you "play" with those you disagree with.

Grow up Justin. I don't mean toying with men. More like playing with each
other in a sandbox. You know it's amazing - guys like you miss no opportunity to put christian motives in the worse possible light.

Now, if you do not intend it as such, I profoundly apologize ... but that's where it stands. You were (again, to the best of my understanding) dishonest with me several times in the thread I linked to above, and I frankly do not trust you or your assertions.

Please give a specific reference where I was dishonest and not simply mistaken. You know Justin, I may not be the brightest bulb in the room, but lying on these threads is pretty stupid - with all the lurkers and fellow posters...

As things stand, I would not trust you to understand what having "love and respect for all men" is. Based on your actions, it seems that "contempt" is more accurate.

Again, yes there are BELIEFS that I think are destructive and wrong. Loving the person is another thing. If you can't separated the two that is not my problem...

Now, let me bring this conversation back to HD's original topic--I do disagree with im, in that I feel that one can say "Your path is wrong" when that path leads you to harm yourself or others. And I include dishonesty as harm.

So who is correct - you or Heathen Dawn?

Seer, the only God you have embraced is your own pride--and that pride leads you to treat others as lesser than you are.

Now who is lying Justin? Where did I ever treat a person that way? Or does the fact that I believe Christ to be Lord, to the exclusion of all others, automatically make me suspect?

[technomage]

Where did I ever treat a person that way?

Me. Repeatedly.

[seer]

Me. Repeatedly.

Justin, that is the problem. Just because I question your BELIEFS does not mean that I think you smell bad or are somehow a lesser being than me. I believe you are created in the image of God - thus deserving of my love.

[Richbee]

.....Paganism is different.

O.K.

It was already quite different in the past, and it’s even more different in our day and age. Paganism is like the soft sciences—many gods, many ways, many truths, many shades between the extremes, nothing set in stone, nothing absolutely certain, and everything flows (truth is fluid).

Many truths? If everything is true, what then is false? Yet, you know your own "path" - paganism?

Truth is fluid

Hmmm, how can you make this exclusive truth claim, and narrow statement about Truth?

You know this to be true for yourself? Flows like water - flows where? Flows like water or like storm surge from New Orleans? Where and when does the flow stop?

Truth and Knowledge

It’s critical to distinguish truth and knowledge. Too many people equate these two concepts, with chaotic results. But truth and knowledge are different concepts. Put simply, true affirmations are those that correspond to reality. So truth is a characteristic of statements that properly describe aspects of the real world. This is called the correspondence view of truth.

The correspondence view of truth isn’t a method for testing truth claims or discovering knowledge. It’s a definition of what we mean when we say that a statement “is true.” According to the correspondence view, what makes a statement true is reality itself.

......All those have an equal place under the pagan umbrella. All are true, all are good.

So, all are equally false? Wait, what is Truth? So, all that you "know" is true? :dizzy:

But the umbrella itself is made of diversity. That attitude of the hard sciences, that desire to state an undisputable truth for all people just as surely as 1+1=2, is the one thing that paganism cannot brook. The one thing that goes against the very heart of paganism. It’s perfectly OK to say the other’s path is not to your taste; but when you say the other’s path is not good, as a sweeping statement, objective reality, true for all, undebatable, then you should ask yourself if you’re not in the wrong religion. Or the wrong university faculty, for that matter.

On what basis have you concluded and asserted such sweeping statements?

Haven't you really asserted in favor of Pluralism: noun. A condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society.

But, wait, Truth is fluid

Is there pagan truth? Or, is there one standard to define Truth? Quoting now about: Truth: ".....is the judgment expressed when we use the word "is."

The verb "is" asserts something about reality to which the statement conforms.

The statement "This is so," expresses a state of existence that is real, and not dependent on belief in it in order to make it true. The reality being represented is objective, universal, and transcendent. This is precisely the logic by which we operate, and the logic by which we either make statements about reality or make denials about what is not real.

"The logic of truth is the same for all exclusionary claims to truth"

(Mortimer Adler, Truth in Religion, p. 10).

Truth by definition is exclusive. If truth were all-inclusive, nothing would be false. And if nothing were false, what would be the meaning of true?

Furthermore, if nothing were false, would it be true to say that everything is false? It quickly becomes evident that nonsense would follow. In short, therefore, truth boils down to two tests: Statements must correspond to reality, and any system of thought that is developed as a result must be coherent. The correspondence and coherence tests are applied by all of us in matters that affect us." (end of quote)

The Inextinguishable Light (www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?jtcode=JT96FRZ)

[technomage]

Justin, that is the problem. Just because I question your BELIEFS does not mean that I think you smell bad or are somehow a lesser being than me. I believe you are created in the image of God - thus deserving of my love.

Has nothing to do with questioning my beliefs, Seer. You've repeatedly questioned my intelligence, my honesty, and my honor. *shrug* But I don't feel alone ... you do the same thing with your Calvinist co-religionists.

Bluntly, Seer, I do not trust you. Yet I keep trying--hoping that you'll see that what you're doing is different from what you say that you do. So far, I've been disappointed each and every time, but I'll keep trying.

[technomage]

You've said much the same thing before (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=989141&postcount=73), Clutch. And it's no more accurate now than it was then.

[Richbee]

You've said much the same thing before (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=989141&postcount=73), Clutch. And it's no more accurate now than it was then.

It's no more accurate? I like that source!

It's = It is

IS?

Are you making another exclusive truth claim about TRUTH?

Quote: "....You can’t in the same breath say, ‘Nothing is universally true’ and ‘My view is universally true.’ Relativism falsifies itself. It claims there is one position that is true – relativism!"

- Professor Paul Copan

[technomage]

Are you making another exclusive truth claim about TRUTH?

Nope--I'm stating that you have an incorrect understanding of my beliefs concerning the universality of "truth." I'm not a relativist.

[seer]

Has nothing to do with questioning my beliefs, Seer. You've repeatedly questioned my intelligence, my honesty, and my honor. *shrug* But I don't feel alone ... you do the same thing with your Calvinist co-religionists.

Your honor? Your intelligence? I don't mentioning remember those. As far as your honesty, you have to show me what I said in context. Did I say that your were dishonest or that your position was? Be specific please...

[Richbee]

Nope--I'm stating that you have an incorrect understanding of my beliefs concerning the universality of "truth." I'm not a relativist.

So, what then is truth?

[technomage]

So, what then is truth?
Funny ... you don't look a thing like a Roman procurator.

[betzerg]

Thank you for your bits of the world-renowned Christian “love”, seer and betzerg.

Now … I’ve got better things to do in my life than waste my time here.

and it is love, heathen dawn...because if I didn't tell you that there are absolutes that exist and G-d IS that absolute...I wouldn't be doing much more than all the pagan voices in your life....basing reality on subjective beliefs. I do care about you heathen dawn. You are created in the image of
G-d and contain the sparks of His divine nature. Knowing HIM is the only way to bring those sparks to life.

Shalom,

[technomage]

because if I didn't tell you that there are absolutes that exist and G-d IS that absolute...I wouldn't be doing much more than all the pagan voices in your life....basing reality on subjective beliefs.

Betzerg ... do you realize that this is a "broad-brush" accusation? Some Pagans are relativists. Many are not.

[Rahab]

So, what then is truth? If I may....truth when it comes to elaborating on an abstract concept reflected by the notion of any deity is in fact only an assumption.

Theistic religions rely on the undemonstrable, non supported by physical evidence concept that such deities in fact do exist.

It defies both logic and reason IMO to demand that any theological tenant be claimed as truth considering that those tenants all stem from an abstract concept yet to be demonstrated and confirmed by existing realities.

I commend the honesty of those who realize that their beliefs stem from a subjective projection of the human mind seeking to believe in whichever god, goddess, divinity, entity they have yet to experience thru a physical world.

We cannot speak of the absolute when the intellectual process of claiming any absolute relies on such an abstract concept. Neither Justin nor you can at any time declare your truth to be absolute as none of you can at any time provide any physical evidence that the concept of a deity stems from the truth of our percievable existing realities.

The truth in any case, Clutch, calls for evidence to make it a legitimate truth. None of us theists can provide that evidence.

[Richbee]

If I may....truth when it comes to elaborating on an abstract concept reflected by the notion of any deity is in fact only an assumption.

Theistic religions rely on the undemonstrable, non supported by physical evidence concept that such deities in fact do exist.

It defies both logic and reason IMO to demand that any theological tenant be claimed as truth considering that those tenants all stem from an abstract concept yet to be demonstrated and confirmed by existing realities.

I commend the honesty of those who realize that their beliefs stem from a subjective projection of the human mind seeking to believe in whichever god, goddess, divinity, entity they have yet to experience thru a physical world.

We cannot speak of the absolute when the intellectual process of claiming any absolute relies on such an abstract concept. Neither Justin nor you can at any time declare your truth to be absolute as none of you can at any time provide any physical evidence that the concept of a deity stems from the truth of our percievable existing realities.

The truth in any case, Clutch, calls for evidence to make it a legitimate truth. None of us theists can provide that evidence.

So, in the context of this thread, there is no objective evidence for the Goddess, or 'Lord and Lady'? And, accordingly who can objectively judge from the evidence or lack of evidence? (Please, note that it is not my intent to assert for the historical evidence of Jesus Christ, the Jewish 'Messiah' - the very God of God, - Son of God of history, as this is best discussed under another thread(s) (e.g. Apologetics))

Yet, can we not ask for an orgin, or source of these "goddess" or "gods" ideas? Really, the invention of the ancient Babylonian, Greek or Roman poets - right? Meaning? Purpose? Eternal destiny as stated in this belief system? Goddess Saves?

Seriously only a subjective belief system in the mind of the belierver without eyewitness or historical (objective) evidence?

[seer]

We cannot speak of the absolute when the intellectual process of claiming any absolute relies on such an abstract concept. Neither Justin nor you can at any time declare your truth to be absolute as none of you can at any time provide any physical evidence that the concept of a deity stems from the truth of our percievable existing realities.

God would not be an abstract reality. Christ either existed or He didn't. He either came back from the grave or He didn't. These are not abstract concepts - they are objective and historical in nature.

Theistic religions rely on the undemonstrable, non supported by physical evidence concept that such deities in fact do exist.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Day unto day they uttereth speech, and night unto night they sheweth knowledge.There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

Our very existance proves God...

[tmancour]

Don't we see in the heirachy of the gods in paganism the same kind of bickering and confusion we see in the human race itself. What happens when these "truths" contridict each other? The fruits of a religion are seen in the actions of it's adherents.


That depends. I believe you are confusing mythology with religion, here. In modern Paganism, Heirarchy is not really a valid description -- we make little attempt to organize the gods. Nor do we see them as advancing competeing or contradictory philosophies. Instead they are compliamentary, and present different aspects of the same "truth". And I agree: the fruits of a religion are seen in the action of its adherents. Which makes radical monotheism look not so good.


Honestly, the pagans that I know dislike any concept of law or "order" and choose to bash those who do. They flaunt free sexual expression and seem to take "pride" in being "different and off the beaten path" so to speak.


Quite often we are. Yes, some of us do "flaunt" free sexual expression, for we recognize sexuality as a sacrement, not as a shameful source of guilt. As far as law and order, most of Western law and order derives from a radical monotheistic religious tradition that is at odds with many of our basic precepts.


Judaism, on the other hand...believes in order and continuity created by ONE G-d. The purpose of man is to help G-d repair the earth "tikkun Olam" by act of charity and good deeds (I don't see much in the way of "Pagan Homeless shelters"..or a "pagan food pantry") They acknowledge that all those who choose to do what is "good" have a place in the world to come.


See the following links for a few of the many small pagan charities:

http://paganvillage.net/
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usfl&c=notes&id=10286
http://www.avaloncares.org/
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usma&c=festivals&id=10149

And then there is Camp SisterSpirit, in rural Alabama, which spent the month or so after Katrina opening its gates to feed the hundreds in their community who had been displaced and without supplies by other agencies -- even the "Good Christian Folk" in the community who had previously shot at them, harassed them, and denegrated them because of their religion. We've only been around as a modern religion for fifty years or so . . . that doesn't mean we don't have compassion. The Charge directs us to seek both power and compassion.


If there are no absolutes created by ONE G-d (honestly you don't find any absolutes in the god of pagans...they are as arbitrary as man) then either position is up for grabs. But if ONE G-d supreme over all other gods exists...then the pagans search for "Truth" if honest and sincere and not based on rebellion and self-endulgence...should lead to finding this ONE TRUE G-D.


Nope. Your opinion is biased and not objective. A few thousand years of radical monothesitic ideology has convinced you that one god is somehow better than many. And most Pagans don't search for "truth" in the radical monotheistic sense. We are searching for truths within ourselves.

Arion

[Rahab]

So, in the context of this thread, there is no objective evidence for the Goddess, or 'Lord and Lady'? And, accordingly who can objectively judge from the evidence or lack of evidence? (Please, note that it is not my intent to assert for the historical evidence of Jesus Christ, the Jewish 'Messiah' - the very God of God, - Son of God of history, as this is best discussed under another thread(s) (e.g. Apologetics)) Clutch, you asked "what is the truth" in the context of this thead. I thus pointed you to the reality that such question cannot equaly be answered objectively by any theist. The reason being that the root of ANY theistic theology relies on an abstract concept (existence of deities either a mono deity or poly deities) which cannot be demonstrated by any physical reality.

Do you or not agree that the initial concept itself of any deity is of an abstract nature?

We differenciate at all times what is true from what is false based on physical demonstration and evidence.

Yet, can we not ask for an orgin, or source of these "goddess" or "gods" ideas? Really, the invention of the ancient Babylonian, Greek or Roman poets - right? Meaning? Purpose? Eternal destiny as stated in this belief system? Goddess Saves? The way you apply the term "invention" to their religious belief system needs to be equaly balanced with the way, we, judeo christians, rely on our ancient manuscripts to establish the existence of our God. One could easily attribute the existence of such manuscript to the "invention" of the ancient hebrew civilisation. Specificaly the extrapolation on how the world was created and for which purpose to start with Genesis.

Seriously only a subjective belief system in the mind of the belierver without eyewitness or historical (objective) evidence? How objective is it to rely on ancient manuscripts stemming from on an abstract concept to establish concrete and demonstrated truth?

[Rahab]

God would not be an abstract reality. I am not sure what you mean by "abstract reality". Considering that both terms conflict semanticaly with each other. I used specificaly the term "concept" to be associated with "abstract". The opposite being concrete.

Christ either existed or He didn't. He either came back from the grave or He didn't. These are not abstract concepts - they are objective and historical in nature. Jim, the beliefs you refer to are dependent on the ORIGINAL concept to start with Genesis. Without the formulation of the concept of God , there would be no "Son of God". No notion of a Messiah. No notion of the crucial aspect of the Resurrection.

Again, can we honestly establish the quality of being "absolute" to any theistic "truths" as the original concept relies on an abstraction of physical existing realities?





The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Day unto day they uttereth speech, and night unto night they sheweth knowledge.There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

Our very existance proves God.. . Attempting to address my questions by relying on further abstract concepts can only demonstrate to which extent objectivity does not play any part in your reasoning. It is no different than if I you were pointing to an oak and not describe and define it as a tree by extrapolating on HOW you see it.

Do you understand the difference between an objective observation and a subjective one?

[seer]

I am not sure what you mean by "abstract reality". Considering that both terms conflict semanticaly with each other. I used specificaly the term "concept" to be associated with "abstract". The opposite being concrete.

Well you would say that God is concrete - the most concrete of things - correct?

Attempting to address my questions by relying on further abstract concepts can only demonstrate to which extent objectivity does not play any part in your reasoning. It is no different than if I you were pointing to an oak and not describe and define it as a tree by extrapolating on HOW you see it.

Jim, the beliefs you refer to are dependent on the ORIGINAL concept to start with Genesis. Without the formulation of the concept of God , there would be no "Son of God". No notion of a Messiah. No notion of the crucial aspect of the Resurrection.


What? God would not be an abstraction. I'am not sure what you are getting at. But back to my point - the teachings, person and resurrection of Christ are either historical, objective or they are not.


Again, can we honestly establish the quality of being "absolute" to any theistic "truths" as the original concept relies on an abstraction of physical existing realities?

Do you understand the difference between an objective observation and a subjective one?

Sure, and God would be objective no matter what our subjective view was. He would be one way and not another. For instance, God is either personal or not impersonal - not both...

[tmancour]

Well you would say that God is concrete - the most concrete of things - correct?


Define God. Define Concrete.



What? God would not be an abstraction. I'am not sure what you are getting at. But back to my point - the teachings, person and resurrection of Christ are either historical, objective or they are not.

Teachings: which ones? The traditional 4 Gospels? Gospel of Thomas? Sophia of Christ? Gospel of Mary Magdeline? Coptic, Catholic, or Orthodox versions?
Person: We can be reasonably sure a Jew named Jesus lived. Everything other than that is conjecture based on unverifyable documentation.
Resurrection: If we can barely establish the physical existance of Jesus of Nazereth, establishing the exact method of his death and subsequent events is, again, subject entirely to conjecture based on unverifyable documentation. But if it makes you feel better to believe it, go for it. We're pretty tolerant folk.



Sure, and God would be objective no matter what our subjective view was. He would be one way and not another. For instance, God is either personal or not impersonal - not both...

Why not? You'd think an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnicient deity would be able to pull that off.

Arion the Blue

[seer]

Define God.

To start with - A person, personal

Define Concrete.

Real...

Teachings: which ones? The traditional 4 Gospels? Gospel of Thomas? Sophia of Christ? Gospel of Mary Magdeline? Coptic, Catholic, or Orthodox versions?

The four earliest Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. And you may use the Catholic ones, the Orthodox, Coptic,or the Protestant ones...


Person: We can be reasonably sure a Jew named Jesus lived. Everything other than that is conjecture based on unverifyable documentation.

Unverifyable by whom? Even if they were unverifyable it doesn't mean that they are untrue...

Why not? You'd think an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnicient deity would be able to pull that off.

You are speaking nonsense. That is like saying that God can both exist and not exist at the same moment.

[JazzDragon]

Hmmm...

It seems i was mistaken and i must apologize. There seems to be a profound difference between Paganism, Neo-Paganism, Wicca, the old way of "witchcraft" and the new way of "witchcraft"

I was wondering if someone could explain these labels so i can use them properly, now i am not sure what to call myself, not that the labels help much anyway. "Witches" (im trying to avoid using the labels) are so varied in our personal beliefs anyway...

Thank you!

[tmancour]

Define God.

To start with - A person, personal



I take this to mean: an individual entity with a distinct and seperate intelligence and consciousness; self aware (sentient) and self-cognizant(sapient).

Hmm. I would have thought that a definition of God would be more . . . comprehensive than that. As it stands, by your definition pretty much everyone is God. Ain't polytheism grand?


Define Concrete.
Real...


Real what? Real pretty? Real smart? (you'd think) Real . . . as in discernable as objective phenomena by sensory apparatus and independently verifyable by quantitative instrument? Throw me a bone, here.


Teachings: which ones? The traditional 4 Gospels? Gospel of Thomas? Sophia of Christ? Gospel of Mary Magdeline? Coptic, Catholic, or Orthodox versions?

The four earliest Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. And you may use the Catholic ones, the Orthodox, Coptic,or the Protestant ones...


By why not the Gnostics? And other texts attributed as the teachings of Jesus? What makes the texts you list any more or less valid, any more or less accurate on the subject of the spiritual teachings of Jesus? What are your objective criteria for selection? Or do you just accept some on whim and tradition, and decide the others are fake, without any real evidence for the authenticity of any of them?

Beyond that, what (if we were to accept any or all of the above as accurate representations -- in the original Aramaic, of course, then translated into Greek, Latin, and the colloqueal language accurately (HA!) and without embellishment) are the "teachings" of Jesus? Do we have all of them? Were some lost? Were they accurately remembered and rendered into text? How do you know?


Unverifyable by whom? Even if they were unverifyable it doesn't mean that they are untrue...

Do you have adequate third-party source documentation? That is often the objective historical factor in determining the authenticity of a particular text -- though it does not speak to the veracity of that text.
[/quote]

You are speaking nonsense. That is like saying that God can both exist and not exist at the same moment.[/QUOTE]

Again, semantics. I am not speaking nonsense. I am asking you to define a few simple terms, answer a few simple questions, in a way that will allow us to productively continue this conversation on a very technical subject.

The essence of my question is this: Whether or not Jesus existed or not, taught anything in particular or not, was the avatar of Jehovah or not, and any other number of what I would think would be VITALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES in the whole "objective reality is better than subjective reality" debate (which is what you are arguing by saying "either he did and was, or he wasn't") is completely and utterly dependent upon how you define these terms, what sources you use to back up your suppositions, and how you propose to distinguish them from the experiential mode of Wicca and related Neo-Pagan religions.

Arion

[tmancour]

Hmmm...

It seems i was mistaken and i must apologize. There seems to be a profound difference between Paganism, Neo-Paganism, Wicca, the old way of "witchcraft" and the new way of "witchcraft"

I was wondering if someone could explain these labels so i can use them properly, now i am not sure what to call myself, not that the labels help much anyway. "Witches" (im trying to avoid using the labels) are so varied in our personal beliefs anyway...

Thank you!


Yes, there are, and the discussion would be a long and cantankerous one in some circles. For some good basic info, I'd start with www.witchvox.org and take a look at some of the articles there. Good stuff. Remember: your mileage may vary.

Arion

[Rahab]

Well you would say that God is concrete - the most concrete of things - correct?. No I would not as I do pay attention to what concrete means : what is percievable thru our senses. Explain to me how the concept of any god is somehow the product of an observation relying on the use of our senses. Neither our Wiccan friends nor us can objectively describe how our respective gods "look like". Nor can we even rely on other senses such as touch, smell, taste, hearing to confirm that our subjective view of our gods relies on any existing reality.

Scriptures declare that "noone has seen God". Further God, is defined as a "spirit" not a person. Can you enlight me as to which senses allow for the concept of "spirit" if you consider that a "spirit" is a concrete concept.?




What? God would not be an abstraction. I'am not sure what you are getting at. But back to my point - the teachings, person and resurrection of Christ are either historical, objective or they are not. Again, Jim, the "teachings, person and resurrection of Christ" DEPEND on and stem from the original concept that there is a god. Again, an abstract concept.(I am assuming that by now you are understanding the difference between an abstract concept and a concrete one).




Sure, and God would be objective no matter what our subjective view was. He would be one way and not another. For instance, God is either personal or not impersonal - not both... Justifying the use of the term "absolute" based on "it is because it is" does not confirm that it is true. How do you differenciate between false and true in your daily life, Jim? Which thought process leads you to declare one thing true and the other false?

Before we drift too far from my initial point, I will summarize again for you why I believe that declaring any theistic theology as "absolute truth" defies both logic and reason:

The original, initial concept of any deity(unpercievable by our senses) is the root of ANY theological course taken by both poly and mono theists. We have in fact taken an abstract concept and built our beliefs on it. As believers of one deity or the other(s), the faith phenomenon becomes our conviction that such deity IS. Thus to declare that one belief is the absolute truth while others are not never relies on concrete evidence that the original concept itself is even substantiated as being verified by any existing reality.

[seer]

Hmm. I would have thought that a definition of God would be more . . . comprehensive than that. As it stands, by your definition pretty much everyone is God. Ain't polytheism grand?

Read what I said. To START with He is personal...

By why not the Gnostics? And other texts attributed as the teachings of Jesus? What makes the texts you list any more or less valid, any more or less accurate on the subject of the spiritual teachings of Jesus? What are your objective criteria for selection.

I'am sure understand criteria for choosing canon. Especially the Gospels...

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html#mar

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil23.html


The essence of my question is this: Whether or not Jesus existed or not, taught anything in particular or not, was the avatar of Jehovah or not, and any other number of what I would think would be VITALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES in the whole "objective reality is better than subjective reality" debate (which is what you are arguing by saying "either he did and was, or he wasn't") is completely and utterly dependent upon how you define these terms, what sources you use to back up your suppositions, and how you propose to distinguish them from the experiential mode of Wicca and related Neo-Pagan religions.

What experiential mode? I have no reason to doubt the N.T. and Christianity is both historical and experiential. So why is your experience more true or valid than ours?

[seer]

Scriptures declare that "noone has seen God". Further God, is defined as a "spirit" not a person. Can you enlight me as to which senses allow for the concept of "spirit" if you consider that a "spirit" is a concrete concept.?

Of course God the Father is personal Rahab. He thinks, wills, acts, etc... We are also spiritual beings, His Spirit bears witness with our Spirits. And of course God is self described in scripture. And the Spirit may be more concrete (real) than the physical universe. Remember CS Lewis called this world the "Shadow Lands."

Again, Jim, the "teachings, person and resurrection of Christ" DEPEND on and stem from the original concept that there is a god. Again, an abstract concept.(I am assuming that by now you are understanding the difference between an abstract concept and a concrete one).

Again Rahab, God is not a concept! If He exists He is reality.


Justifying the use of the term "absolute" based on "it is because it is" does not confirm that it is true. How do you differenciate between false and true in your daily life, Jim? Which thought process leads you to declare one thing true and the other false?

Logic Rahab. Look God can not be both personal and impersonal. Someone is wrong here. I may be wrong, or the other camp may be wrong - but we both can not be right. He is one way and not another... Now Christ posed a personal God, I believe Christ.

The original, initial concept of any deity(unpercievable by our senses) is the root of ANY theological course taken by both poly and mono theists. We have in fact taken an abstract concept and built our beliefs on it.

No Christian believes that. We believe that God revealed Himself, actually spoke to men. That Christ gave us true information about Him. That God communicated to man - mind to mind.

As believers of one deity or the other(s), the faith phenomenon becomes our conviction that such deity IS. Thus to declare that one belief is the absolute truth while others are not never relies on concrete evidence that the original concept itself is even substantiated as being verified by any existing reality.

That only makes sense if you believe that God never communicated to man. That He left us like orphans groping in the dark to try and figure Him out... I don't believe that - do you?

[seer]

Yes, there are, and the discussion would be a long and cantankerous one in some circles. For some good basic info, I'd start with www.witchvox.org and take a look at some of the articles there. Good stuff. Remember: your mileage may vary.

Arion

Interesting site Arion. So do you believe in reincarnation? Why?

[tmancour]

Interesting site Arion. So do you believe in reincarnation? Why?

Two reasons:

In a universe where everything else works as a more-or-less circular system, why would how your soul works be any different? The "one-shot-for-all-of-eternity" idea just does not fit the mold of the rest of the universe, whereas reincarnation does.

Secondly, my personal experience with past-life regressions has proven to my satisfaction that my soul has lived other lives on this sphere. At least five that I have been able to reasonably identify. Perhaps more -- after five I was convinced. I say this not to try to prove to anyone else that this is true, but it satisfied all of my criteria for belief, based on my experiences.

Arion

[tmancour]

Read what I said. To START with He is personal...


But is that the limit of your definition? I asked you to define God, and instead you listed a single characteristic. There has to be more.


I'am sure understand criteria for choosing canon. Especially the Gospels...

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html#mar

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil23.html


I understand how and in many cases why canon was chosen in the RC church, but I do not think that concensus in and of itself is necessarily a verification of accuracy. While the early church fathers were always eager to point fingers and yell 'heretic!' whenever someone dared propose a thought based outside of their pet canon (which increased their own prestige as wise and able ministers) that does not mean that they didn't ignore or castigate those texts which quite possibly were authentic . . . but either unpopular or politically embarassing. The Gospel of Mary Magdeline, for instance, conflicts directly on many points with the writings of Paul, used as an authority for the Church Fathers. The fact that the work exists today only upon the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls is indicative of the venom the Church Fathers reserved for competing ideas.

Even if you take the GMM and the Sophia of Christ and other writings out of the picture, the Gospel of Thomas conforms in many ways with the four canonical Gospels . . . yet is rejected as scripture because it has elements that don't conform to the way the Church evolved. And of all the Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas was probably the most accurate account of the acutal words of Christ without any interpretation, as it is basically a verbatim list of "Things Jesus Said."

My point here is the essential difficulty with Text-based religions in general, and Christianity in particular. There is no way to verify their accuracy, even if their authenticity is not in doubt. So the "Teachings of Jesus" as Jesus himself may have taught them are at best conjecture.

But I asked you: what are the central teachings of Jesus? Not the dog and pony show that happened after the execution, but the things Jesus actually taught?

Consider this question: what if a letter from Jesus himself was discovered? Pretend a reasonably authentic account of Jesus' life was discovered in some clay pot somewhere, something that could stand intellectual and scientific scruitiny and be verified as being accurate, and yet contradicted some of the four canonical gospels at some points, which would you cleave to? The "real" teachings, as laid down by the Christ himself or the "teachings" evolved and shaped by political expediency over two thousand years? And why would you make that choice?



What experiential mode? I have no reason to doubt the N.T. and Christianity is both historical and experiential. So why is your experience more true or valid than ours?

Didn't say it was. I actually consider experiential, orthopractic Christianity the only "true and valid" Christianity. It's people who get their religion second and third-hand through ancient books and obsolete laws that I find wanting of validity and truth. "God is a Verb".

Arion

[seer]

Didn't say it was. I actually consider experiential, orthopractic Christianity the only "true and valid" Christianity. It's people who get their religion second and third-hand through ancient books and obsolete laws that I find wanting of validity and truth. "God is a Verb".

We could do the textual stuff in a new thread if you want. But this is interesting. I would say that God is a noun. As I said, personal. I wouldn't call you a verb, why do you call God a verb?

[seer]

In a universe where everything else works as a more-or-less circular system, why would how your soul works be any different? The "one-shot-for-all-of-eternity" idea just does not fit the mold of the rest of the universe, whereas reincarnation does.

Actually no, the universe is not circular. The universe it's self is linear - big bang - death. All life is linear. A tree grows and dies. Never to return. It will reproduce after it's own kind, but the particular tree is forever lost...

[technomage]

We could do the textual stuff in a new thread if you want. But this is interesting. I would say that God is a noun. As I said, personal. I wouldn't call you a verb, why do you call God a verb?
Yeah, and maybe it'll end up like our thread did--with me talking and you steadfastly not listening.

Seer, face it--you do not understand Wicca or Paganism, and you do not want to understand. You steadfastly refuse to understand ... but you can't help trying to "argue" against it. So you create strawmen of what you think Paganism is all about, batter the strawmen to dust, and truly believe you're "defeating Paganism."

"All is emptiness, and chasing the wind."

Hey, that's cool that you want to oppose Paganism ... wherever you need to be. But you do end up looking silly most of the time.

[Solar]

Seer and his ilk are the very reason I became an atheist. Smug, arrogant and condescending little p*****.

[Richbee]

Clutch, you asked "what is the truth" in the context of this thead.

Actually, I was asking, What is truth?.

The very definition of Truth.

See John 20, when Jesus asked Pontius Pilate that very same question. Perhaps further discussion is better over under "Comparitive Religion", or "Apologetics"?

Over here, it is a great question to wonder if "Truth is Fluid", and absolute or relative, or objective/subjective.

Experential? Sure. I agree. But, wait, oh, the truth Vs. knowledge thingy comes back too.

One might KNOW a "spirit" - but we might also test these spirits as well. What then are these "spirits"? Where might they lead us? Follow the Bliss? To where?

[Richbee]

Nope--I'm stating that you have an incorrect understanding of my beliefs concerning the universality of "truth." I'm not a relativist.

Are you not making an absolute statement?

Relativist?

But, is not truth exclusive?

What is False? (Is everything True?)

Our preferences influence our opinions, but indeed, it is our conscience that decides our convictions. So, we weigh the evidence, or the objective facts do we not?

Or, should just be carried away by feels? :huh:

[seer]

Yeah, and maybe it'll end up like our thread did--with me talking and you steadfastly not listening.

Seer, face it--you do not understand Wicca or Paganism, and you do not want to understand. You steadfastly refuse to understand ... but you can't help trying to "argue" against it. So you create strawmen of what you think Paganism is all about, batter the strawmen to dust, and truly believe you're "defeating Paganism."

"All is emptiness, and chasing the wind."

Hey, that's cool that you want to oppose Paganism ... wherever you need to be. But you do end up looking silly most of the time.


Well Justin please be specific. What exactly don't I understand? Your view on the nature and character of God? That God is a verb? If I remember correctly, you, as with most Wiccians, don't have a firm belief on this subject. And to me this is the most important question...

[seer]

Seer and his ilk are the very reason I became an atheist. Smug, arrogant and condescending little p*****.

No doubt that I have a lot of room for improvement...

[Solar]

No doubt that I have a lot of room for improvement...

Oh I'm sure you could be a much bigger pr*** if you tried a little.

[tmancour]

Actually no, the universe is not circular. The universe it's self is linear - big bang - death. All life is linear. A tree grows and dies. Never to return. It will reproduce after it's own kind, but the particular tree is forever lost...


But more current theories show the essentially cyclical nature of the universe -- big bang/heat death is no longer accepted theory. And I don't accept death as a termination, something to be feared and hated, merely a change-state. The tree is not lost, it exists eternally in space-time. We are not "lost" to death, merely at a different point in the journey. What the man on the bank sees as a log floating by the log sees as a continuum.

Arion

[tmancour]

We could do the textual stuff in a new thread if you want. But this is interesting. I would say that God is a noun. As I said, personal. I wouldn't call you a verb, why do you call God a verb?

I was quoting one of the greatest wizards of the modern age, R. Buckminster Fuller. He saw "God" as an active thing in the universe, a state of being and doing, not a person. He felt that trying to box the totality of the creative experience he saw as Divinity into any kind of finite personality was futile, and that it was the recognition of the continual act of creation that was the true hallmark of divinity. In short, it isn't God Is, but God Does.

Another problem with textual vs. experiencial religions: textual religions have a finite number of acceptable imaginings of the godhead, which limits the type of truly creative thinking that is Humanity's birthright. Experiencial relgions have a greater tendancy to develop creative solutions to practical problems because they are relatively unfettered by dogmatic and rigidly structured thinking.

Arion

[seer]

But more current theories show the essentially cyclical nature of the universe -- big bang/heat death is no longer accepted theory.

I believe you are incorrect. At this time no other theory is viable.

And I don't accept death as a termination, something to be feared and hated, merely a change-state. The tree is not lost, it exists eternally in space-time.

But the tree is no longer a tree. It may be a gas. But it's tree qualities,so to speak, are gone. As far as we know it does not pop up as a tree somewhere else.

We are not "lost" to death, merely at a different point in the journey. What the man on the bank sees as a log floating by the log sees as a continuum.

And the tree turns into what?

[seer]

I was quoting one of the greatest wizards of the modern age, R. Buckminster Fuller. He saw "God" as an active thing in the universe, a state of being and doing, not a person. He felt that trying to box the totality of the creative experience he saw as Divinity into any kind of finite personality was futile, and that it was the recognition of the continual act of creation that was the true hallmark of divinity. In short, it isn't God Is, but God Does.

Well I do not believe that God is finite. God is and does. If God is doing can we assume that God has a will?

Another problem with textual vs. experiencial religions: textual religions have a finite number of acceptable imaginings of the godhead, which limits the type of truly creative thinking that is Humanity's birthright.

It would be more a logical problem. You are suggesting an impersonal God, I am posing a personal God. One, or both of us are wrong. But we both can not be right.


Experiencial relgions have a greater tendancy to develop creative solutions to practical problems because they are relatively unfettered by dogmatic and rigidly structured thinking.

Well I do not see what solution an impersonal God offers. Does this God love, care? Is He just? Does He have moral preferences? Or like any other force in nature, consider gravity, is He apathetic to man's plight...

[seer]

Oh I'm sure you could be a much bigger pr*** if you tried a little.

For sure... I just pray that God would be gracious to a small, wretched thing like me...

[tmancour]

I believe you are incorrect. At this time no other theory is viable.


Sorry, you are the one that is incorrect. Assuming that the Big Bang theory is set in stone ignores several very serious issues with astrophysical observation. The heat death of the universe is not universally accepted in academic circles, although it still remains a popular theory for the layman. Recent discoveries about the nature of Dark Matter have cast considerable doubt on the Big Bang/Big Crunch model. For a probable alternative theory by a respected Astrophysicist, check out:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html



But the tree is no longer a tree. It may be a gas. But it's tree qualities,so to speak, are gone. As far as we know it does not pop up as a tree somewhere else.


And the day you enjoy today will disappear with a new dawn -- but another will begin. The tree is no longer a tree, but who is to say that the spirit of the tree does not return? Neither you nor I are in a position to say definitively.


And the tree turns into what?

It turns into other trees, bugs, microbes, etc. "Eternal Life" is a conceit of radical monotheism. Death in the service of life is natural, expected, and (to a Pagan) sacred.

Arion

[tmancour]

Well I do not believe that God is finite. God is and does. If God is doing can we assume that God has a will?


Please explain the logic underlying that conclusion, citing specific evidence.

"God", as you put it, may have a "Will", but not in any human sense of the word. It isn't that "God is doing" but "god if Doing". The evidence of divinity is in its creative expression.


It would be more a logical problem. You are suggesting an impersonal God, I am posing a personal God. One, or both of us are wrong. But we both can not be right.


Not at all. I suggest a divinity that has a unique personal manifestation to our limited understanding, as evidenced in its personal creative expression, while at the same time being a universal force almost entirely unconcerned (if you grant it a Will, and, therefore, sapience) with our lives. The ocean touches many shores, but the part of it that laps at your feet still makes you wet.


Well I do not see what solution an impersonal God offers.


It isn't a "solution". There isn't a "problem".


Does this God love, care?


Perhaps in its personal manifestation, depending upon the nature of the individual. Do you need it to love and care? Then it probably does. Are you content that it keeps electrons and galaxies in their proper place while you go on with your life? Then that is likely your experience of it.


Is He just?


Firstly, you are assuming that It is a He, meaning It has a penis. I wouldn't accept that unless you also assume that It also has a vagina.

Secondly, justice is not an absolute, it is highly dependent upon cultural variables. Nor could you determine the justice of a divinity without that context. Even then, assigning authorship of particular events to a divinity and attempting to determine their meaning and interpret the motivation of said divinity through those actions is an exercise in futility. Case in point: a number of Evangelicals saw Katrina as Jehovah's Revenge on the sinful city of New Orleans. Many Pagans saw it as the Goddess's Revenge on the Red States for short-sighted environmental policies and unjust governence. Which is it? A case could be made for either. Where is the justice in that case?


Does He have moral preferences? Or like any other force in nature, consider gravity, is He apathetic to man's plight...

Only in Its personal expression, as reflected by the individual's cultural biases. Anything greater than that cannot be known with anything approaching certainty.

From a Cosmic perspective, yes, It is apathetic to man's "plight". Not that I see a "plight". I'm thankful that I live, that I live how I do and where I do. What you see as "plight" I celebrate as my individual destiny.

Arion

[seer]

"God", as you put it, may have a "Will", but not in any human sense of the word. It isn't that "God is doing" but "god if Doing". The evidence of divinity is in its creative expression.

As far as I know only minds have "creative expression." So is God mind?

Not at all. I suggest a divinity that has a unique personal manifestation to our limited understanding, as evidenced in its personal creative expression, while at the same time being a universal force almost entirely unconcerned (if you grant it a Will, and, therefore, sapience) with our lives. The ocean touches many shores, but the part of it that laps at your feet still makes you wet.

God is either personal or he is not. And if he is not personal then Our experience that he/it is personal, is false..

Perhaps in its personal manifestation, depending upon the nature of the individual. Do you need it to love and care? Then it probably does. Are you content that it keeps electrons and galaxies in their proper place while you go on with your life? Then that is likely your experience of it.

My needs or your needs have nothing to do with it. We are trying to get at what God actually is...

From a Cosmic perspective, yes, It is apathetic to man's "plight". Not that I see a "plight". I'm thankful that I live, that I live how I do and where I do. What you see as "plight" I celebrate as my individual destiny.

So God does not care whether we love our neighbors or kill and eat our neighbors? If that is the case, what is the basis for reincarnation. I mean Arion, you guys speak like the soul is going from worse to better through these various lives. But why? Who invented the standard that we are trying to obtain too?

[seer]

Sorry, you are the one that is incorrect. Assuming that the Big Bang theory is set in stone ignores several very serious issues with astrophysical observation. The heat death of the universe is not universally accepted in academic circles, although it still remains a popular theory for the layman. Recent discoveries about the nature of Dark Matter have cast considerable doubt on the Big Bang/Big Crunch model. For a probable alternative theory by a respected Astrophysicist, check out:

For this to work you need a workable string theory. No such theory has yet been offered.

http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-05/departments/letter-from-discover

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000133.html

[tmancour]

As far as I know only minds have "creative expression." So is God mind?


A case can be made for that. In fact, it's probably more accurate than most other descriptions.


God is either personal or he is not. And if he is not personal then Our experience that he/it is personal, is false..


Only in a narrow, dualistic, binary on-or-off type of universe; I contend that our universe is more complex and sophisticated than that. The air that I breathe is my "personal" air, but it is also part of a much larger system. it is nonetheless vitally important that my personal air is there.


My needs or your needs have nothing to do with it. We are trying to get at what God actually is...


I disagree. As far as a personal relationship with divinity, our needs are essential to understanding it. As far as the cosmic aspects of divinity, yes, our needs are insignificant. It all depends upon which you consider the more important aspect of divinity to your daily life.


So God does not care whether we love our neighbors or kill and eat our neighbors?
[QUOTE=seer]

That depends on which Aspect of divinity you address. From a Pagan perspective, the "Cultural Divinities" Aspects are very concerned with how we regulate our affairs. The whole point of their existance is to guide us towards a pattern of growth that increases our wisdom and understanding. But those issues are not based on rigid directives, to be blindly followed without reason. They are present to be learned from, which implies that "mistakes", cultural transgressions, must be made in order for real learning to take place. But the "Cosmic Divinities" could care less what happens on one tiny dustmote in one mediocre galaxy. When you start to deal with scales like that, when space and time start being real issues, then even a geologic time scale is pretty insignificant.

[QUOTE=seer]
If that is the case, what is the basis for reincarnation. I mean Arion, you guys speak like the soul is going from worse to better through these various lives. But why? Who invented the standard that we are trying to obtain too?

I never claimed that the soul was going from "worse" to "better", merely from "ignorant" to "wise". With the increase in experience across a continum of lifetimes, the aggregate sum of our experiences contributes to a greater understanding of the universe at large. Who invented the standard? Does it matter? Can you even say "who" when speaking in those terms? As far as "why", I think it's pretty simple: because learning is one of the only two decent reasons to approach any serious endeavor.

Arion

[tmancour]

For this to work you need a workable string theory. No such theory has yet been offered.

http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-05/departments/letter-from-discover

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000133.html
Only because we do not yet have sufficient data on which to base one. This will undoubtedly come in time as we get a better and better grasp on the observable nature of the universe. Most of the theoretical physicists I know have a concensus that the "one shot universe" theory is wrong, as it leaves out some fairly fundamental issues. In another hundred years or so we might have a better grasp of it. We won't know anything for certain until Grand Field Unification theory is worked out to its elegant conclusion.

In the meantime, nearly all other observable phenomenae seem to work in patterns and cycles. I maintain that it would be blatantly inconsistant for the soul to be any different.

Arion

Arion

[seer]

A case can be made for that. In fact, it's probably more accurate than most other descriptions.

Ok, a mind is only the function of the personal. Rocks don't "think."

Only in a narrow, dualistic, binary on-or-off type of universe; I contend that our universe is more complex and sophisticated than that. The air that I breathe is my "personal" air, but it is also part of a much larger system. it is nonetheless vitally important that my personal air is there.

But air is still air. You are not fooled into thinking that it is something else. If you experience god as personal and he isn't, then you have a false perception of God...

I disagree. As far as a personal relationship with divinity, our needs are essential to understanding it. As far as the cosmic aspects of divinity, yes, our needs are insignificant. It all depends upon which you consider the more important aspect of divinity to your daily life.

Well I want to get to the truth of the matter. If God does not give a rip about us I want to know that. I don't want to live a lie - do you? You do agree that God does not care about us - correct?

I never claimed that the soul was going from "worse" to "better", merely from "ignorant" to "wise". With the increase in experience across a continum of lifetimes, the aggregate sum of our experiences contributes to a greater understanding of the universe at large. Who invented the standard? Does it matter? Can you even say "who" when speaking in those terms? As far as "why", I think it's pretty simple: because learning is one of the only two decent reasons to approach any serious endeavor.

But who decides what is wise or ignorant? Especially in the moral realm? I mean knowing how the physical universe works tells us nothing about how to treat each other. And of course it matters who invented the standard. If God didn't then it's back to moral relativity... Stalin had his standard of wisdom and you have yours - who's is more correct, and why?

[seer]

Only because we do not yet have sufficient data on which to base one. This will undoubtedly come in time as we get a better and better grasp on the observable nature of the universe. Most of the theoretical physicists I know have a concensus that the "one shot universe" theory is wrong, as it leaves out some fairly fundamental issues. In another hundred years or so we might have a better grasp of it. We won't know anything for certain until Grand Field Unification theory is worked out to its elegant conclusion.

In the meantime, nearly all other observable phenomenae seem to work in patterns and cycles. I maintain that it would be blatantly inconsistant for the soul to be any different.

Arion

Arion

The one shot universe is the ONLY theory that has wide spread acceptance among physicists. As my links showed the string theory is pretty much dead. And until you can show otherwise you can not claim that the universe cycles.

Second, the tree is still dead. It is not reborn as a tree somewhere else. You have no evidence of that. So nature it's self does not cycle it's particulars...

[technomage]

As my links showed the string theory is pretty much dead.

Seer, String theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_Theory) is not dead--the jury's still out over whether or not it's a viable theory, or a blind alley. Since no testable predictions have been made (yet), it can't be decided.

However, Arion, as of the best information we have now, the Universe will, indeed, experience heat death and dispersion. The rate of expansion is accellerating, whereas a "cyclic" universe would have a decreasing rate of expansion.

However, recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova) as standard candles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_candle), and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background)) have—to most scientists' considerable surprise—shown that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity, but instead, accelerating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe), suggesting that the universe will not end with a Big Crunch, but will instead expand forever. (The evidence of an accelerating universe is considered conclusive by most cosmologists since 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002).)

Cite: Big Crunch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch)

Nevertheless, the current discussion does beg a question from both parties--are we sure that the condition of the soul is at all paralleled by natural phenomena. After all, we cannot even prove the existance of the soul by scientific or naturalistic means: any statements on the existance or fate of the soul are faith-based statements that are uincapable of objective evidence.

[seer]

Nevertheless, the current discussion does beg a question from both parties--are we sure that the condition of the soul is at all paralleled by natural phenomena. After all, we cannot even prove the existance of the soul by scientific or naturalistic means: any statements on the existance or fate of the soul are faith-based statements that are uincapable of objective evidence.

Correct, and for information about the survival of the soul one must look elsewhere: Religion. Then the question is - which religion... And I would say that the resurrection of Christ would be objective evidence...

[technomage]

Correct, and for information about the survival of the soul one must look elsewhere: Religion. Then the question is - which religion... And I would say that the resurrection of Christ would be objective evidence...
Actually there's a question that precedes yours: is any religion practiced by humanity even potentially "up to the task" of letting us know Divinity?

I'll let you two hash that out.

[seer]

Actually there's a question that precedes yours: is any religion practiced by humanity even potentially "up to the task" of letting us know Divinity?

I'll let you two hash that out.

Of course, why wouldn't they be? Especially if God communicated to man - that would have to be a condition...

[technomage]

Of course, why wouldn't it be? Especially if God communicated to man - that would have to be a condition...

Ah ... but that's a faith-based condition.

But then again, we've covered this ground before (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60242). And it doesn't seem that you understand any more now than you did then.

[seer]

Ah ... but that's a faith-based condition.

But then again, we've covered this ground before (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60242). And it doesn't seem that you understand any more now than you did then.

Well no, if Christ was raised Justin then that would be objective evidence. Even if the N.T. writers were not always accurate, that would not bear on the truth or falsity of the event. Of course as I pointed out in that thread, I have found no compelling evidence to suggest that the NT writers lied or were intending to convey myth... So yes, you could say that I trust these men, or have faith that they were honest...

BTW Justin, I think you did an excellent job on that Galatian thread...

[technomage]

Well no, if Christ was raised Justin then that would be objective evidence.

Ah ... no. Even if Jesus rose from the dead, you don't have objective evidence--only say-so from a historically unreliable source.

Hey, Seer, you have to remember--according to you, this is the "most important decision" in a person's existance. Why would I want to base such an important decision on an unreliable source?

[seer]

Ah ... no. Even if Jesus rose from the dead, you don't have objective evidence--only say-so from a historically unreliable source.

You are mixing two things Justin. Even if the sources were unreliable, that would not change the objective nature of the event.

Hey, Seer, you have to remember--according to you, this is the "most important decision" in a person's existance. Why would I want to base such an important decision on an unreliable source?

I believe the NT to be quite reliable. Like I said - I trust that these men did not lie... Along with that I have a personal experience of God that has lead me time and time again back to scripture...

[technomage]

You are mixing two things Justin. Even if the sources were unreliable, that would not change the objective nature of the event.

I'm speaking of issues of evidence, Seer.

EDITED TO ADD: If the NT is wrong on relatively simple matters, how can it be trusted with more weighty matters? It's rather like the boy who cried wolf--even if the wolf is coming, how can you trust a source that has proven unreliable in the past?

I believe the NT to be quite reliable. Like I said - I trust that these men did not lie...

"Did not lie" is--by far--not the only way a text can be unreliable.

But we've covered this ground before. I'll let you and Arion discuss it.

[tmancour]

Of course, why wouldn't they be? Especially if God communicated to man - that would have to be a condition...


What makes the revelation of Christianity any more valid than the revelation of Islaam? Or Hinduism?

Arion

[tmancour]

You are mixing two things Justin. Even if the sources were unreliable, that would not change the objective nature of the event.


But the sources you cite are the ONLY EVIDENCE OF THE EVENT you describe. If there was an objective third-party account, maybe . . .

And Jesus wasn't the only person every to be ressurected. Happened all the time in the ancient world . . . if you trust the sources that report it.


I believe the NT to be quite reliable. Like I said - I trust that these men did not lie... Along with that I have a personal experience of God that has lead me time and time again back to scripture...

Big difference between lying, per se, and writing a haigiography. They may have whole-heartedly believed what they wrote. That does not establish an adequate basis for accepting what they wrote (years after the fact, remember) was how it actually went down. My father is a wise and intelligent man. He can't remember key details of stuff that happened a decade ago -- important stuff. He's not senile, he's just about to turn 60. Asking him to write a comprehensive account of a series of events, even important ones, from fifty years ago would make an interesting read, but would it reflect accurately just what happened? Now take that account and translate it three or four times and see how "reliable" his testimony would be.

And while I do not doubt you have been led to scripture, have you ever been led elsewhere? Have not the "truths" of other religious texts offered evidence of divinity? How about the truth of your personal experience (non-scripturally based)?

Arion

[seer]

What makes the revelation of Christianity any more valid than the revelation of Islaam? Or Hinduism?

Arion

That wasn't the point. What I was getting at - why couldn't God communicate to us?

[seer]

But the sources you cite are the ONLY EVIDENCE OF THE EVENT you describe. If there was an objective third-party account, maybe . . .

Well having a third party account would be nice but not necessary. If you trust the writers.


And Jesus wasn't the only person every to be ressurected. Happened all the time in the ancient world . . . if you trust the sources that report it.

Really? Like who? PLease point me to the ancient texts that have a resurrection like Christ's. Bodily.

My father is a wise and intelligent man. He can't remember key details of stuff that happened a decade ago -- important stuff. He's not senile, he's just about to turn 60. Asking him to write a comprehensive account of a series of events, even important ones, from fifty years ago would make an interesting read, but would it reflect accurately just what happened?

Well it would not be just your father's memory. It would be his and his friends. Second, if your father had a friend who died and was burried then came back to life - do you think he would forget that?

And while I do not doubt you have been led to scripture, have you ever been led elsewhere? Have not the "truths" of other religious texts offered evidence of divinity? How about the truth of your personal experience (non-scripturally based)?

Oh goodness yes. I'am 52 years old. I was a child of the sixties. I practice Hatha Yoga, Transcendental Meditaion, lived in the far east for a while and studied Buddhism. Embraced eastern thought in general until my late 30's.

Arion, this is getting away from our discussion, which was just getting interesting:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1278796&postcount=70

[Meh_Gerbil]

I'll be honest -- and don't be offended, but I think most of the time when people embrace 'diversity' they are just admitting they don't have the sand to actually believe something.

The fact remains that you cannot have two branches of Wiccan believing diametrically opposed things and have both truths be correct. While all faith systems have paradoxes (the Trinity comes to mind for the Christian faith) there is a breaking point.

Either crystals transmit healing power or they do not.
Either there is a god and goddess that formed the world, or one, or neither, but 3 Wiccans all with a different view on the matter cannot all be correct.
Either diety X is worthy of receiving prayer or diety X isn't worthy of receiving prayer.

For example, what if I held Baptism was absolutely essential for salvation and another True Christian held it was not essential. Well the sad fact is that either it is or it isn't -- we both cannot be right. While we might be polite to one another, embracing 'diversity' at this point would just be watering down the truth.

While it is true there is some strength to be had in diversity that strength comes with the divergent elements work together for the same aim - if that isn't the case, then the proverb "A house divided against itself will fall" applies.

The word 'Diversity' like the word 'Tolerance' have taken on the aspects of virtue when in fact they are descriptive terms that may alternately describe virtue or depravity depending on the circumstances.

[tmancour]

That wasn't the point. What I was getting at - why couldn't God communicate to us?

I'm not saying She doesn't. I'm just saying, why would the only route of that communication be the NT? If that?

Arion

[technomage]

I'll be honest -- and don't be offended, but I think most of the time when people embrace 'diversity' they are just admitting they don't have the sand to actually believe something.

*shrug* Or it could indicate the fact that though we do believe--and strongly--we're not so proud as to feel that our beliefs are the "final word" on the subject.

[Meh_Gerbil]

*shrug* Or it could indicate the fact that though we do believe--and strongly--we're not so proud as to feel that our beliefs are the "final word" on the subject.

I can appreciate that -- but I don't see what that has to do with an exclusive belief. I don't think my views on a topic are the final word on it by any stretch of the imagination.

However, taking a hypothetical
Wiccan A believes deity A is the supreme pagan deity.
Wiccan B believes deity B is the supreme pagan deity.

They can be friendly to one another, they can have tea and learn from one another -- but what they cannot be is both correct. That means that one of them is wrong and instead of strength that Wiccan's diversity is introducing error into the community.

[seer]

I'm not saying She doesn't. I'm just saying, why would the only route of that communication be the NT? If that?

Arion

Ok, do you think "she" has communicated to us. I am not arguing for Christianity here. I'am trying to keep on the diversity point for now...

[tmancour]

I'll be honest -- and don't be offended, but I think most of the time when people embrace 'diversity' they are just admitting they don't have the sand to actually believe something.

The fact remains that you cannot have two branches of Wiccan believing diametrically opposed things and have both truths be correct. While all faith systems have paradoxes (the Trinity comes to mind for the Christian faith) there is a breaking point.

Either crystals transmit healing power or they do not.
Either there is a god and goddess that formed the world, or one, or neither, but 3 Wiccans all with a different view on the matter cannot all be correct.
Either diety X is worthy of receiving prayer or diety X isn't worthy of receiving prayer.

For example, what if I held Baptism was absolutely essential for salvation and another True Christian held it was not essential. Well the sad fact is that either it is or it isn't -- we both cannot be right. While we might be polite to one another, embracing 'diversity' at this point would just be watering down the truth.

While it is true there is some strength to be had in diversity that strength comes with the divergent elements work together for the same aim - if that isn't the case, then the proverb "A house divided against itself will fall" applies.

The word 'Diversity' like the word 'Tolerance' have taken on the aspects of virtue when in fact they are descriptive terms that may alternately describe virtue or depravity depending on the circumstances.

First, I ain't offended.

Second, I think you are missing one of the major points of Pagan theology, namely the idea that objective "truths" are unimportant. We don't, as a rule, seek a single binding "truth" that we can cling to as objectively as Abrahamics do, nor do we wish one. We don't find it nearly as important as personal truths, admittedly subjective but all the more valuable for being so. We don't care much how or by what means the universe was created, because it has very little effect on our daily lives.

One of the most fundamental aspects of Paganism is the importance of subjective reality, and the tolerance, within reason, of other people's subjective realities. It is only when the objectivists come along and tell us that we don't know anything because we don't have an an autographed copy of a two-thousand year old book that we get pissed off. Otherwise, we tend to be pretty easy going folk.

Part of the problem is that you folks keep wanting to frame this debate exclusively in Judeo-Christian terms, when our axioms are different. For us Wisdom is as important as Faith is to y'all, the Goddess and Her attendent cycles are as important as the Passion to you, and the idea of sin and salvation are completely absent, if not abhorrant. You decry our lack of an objective moral standard, and yet despite this Pagans tend to be highly moral, highly ethical people. You see Death as an enemy, we see it as a natural and inevitable part of life. You see Sex as a sin while we see it as a sacrement. And when we don't have an ancient written text to back up our beliefs and bind us into one constantly arguing community, you throw up your hands and shake your heads and wonder how a bunch of nutters like us could honestly call ourselves a religion. (We don't need an ancient text, by the way -- we constantly argue amongst ourselves without one).

We embrace diversity as a blessing, you see it as a heresy to be overcome. And when it comes down to it, our religion embraces the idea that you might be right -- for you. But your religion can never acknowlege that we could be right, and we find that unfair and troubling -- especially when there is a tiny minority of hate-mongers using that premise as a pretext to censor, oppress, and ultimately kill us.

We are not unfamiliar with your POV -- heck, most of us used to be devout, believing Christians. But for a variety of reasons we found a better faith -- for ourselves -- in Paganism. Instead of trying to understand the complex theology of our collection of beliefs, many of you cast aspertions on the "silly hedonistic Pagans", not realizing that what has happened with the Pagan movement in the last 25 years signifies a dramatic shift in Western Civilization.

But I ain't offended.

Arion

[tmancour]

I can appreciate that -- but I don't see what that has to do with an exclusive belief. I don't think my views on a topic are the final word on it by any stretch of the imagination.

However, taking a hypothetical
Wiccan A believes deity A is the supreme pagan deity.
Wiccan B believes deity B is the supreme pagan deity.

They can be friendly to one another, they can have tea and learn from one another -- but what they cannot be is both correct. That means that one of them is wrong and instead of strength that Wiccan's diversity is introducing error into the community.

Emphasis mine. Your fault here is figuring that we each push one deity as the supreme deity, when that is not true. My patroness is Brighead, but I by no means advance her as superior to other deities -- except for me. All this heirachical 'my god is more powerful than your god' stuff is indicative of patriarchal religions. The car needs wheels and an engine to work -- which one is 'supreme'?

Arion

[Meh_Gerbil]

First, I ain't offended.

Second, I think you are missing one of the major points of Pagan theology, namely the idea that objective "truths" are unimportant. We don't, as a rule, seek a single binding "truth" that we can cling to as objectively as Abrahamics do, nor do we wish one. We don't find it nearly as important as personal truths, admittedly subjective but all the more valuable for being so. We don't care much how or by what means the universe was created, because it has very little effect on our daily lives.

One of the most fundamental aspects of Paganism is the importance of subjective reality, and the tolerance, within reason, of other people's subjective realities. It is only when the objectivists come along and tell us that we don't know anything because we don't have an an autographed copy of a two-thousand year old book that we get pissed off. Otherwise, we tend to be pretty easy going folk.

Part of the problem is that you folks keep wanting to frame this debate exclusively in Judeo-Christian terms, when our axioms are different. For us Wisdom is as important as Faith is to y'all, the Goddess and Her attendent cycles are as important as the Passion to you, and the idea of sin and salvation are completely absent, if not abhorrant. You decry our lack of an objective moral standard, and yet despite this Pagans tend to be highly moral, highly ethical people. You see Death as an enemy, we see it as a natural and inevitable part of life. You see Sex as a sin while we see it as a sacrement. And when we don't have an ancient written text to back up our beliefs and bind us into one constantly arguing community, you throw up your hands and shake your heads and wonder how a bunch of nutters like us could honestly call ourselves a religion. (We don't need an ancient text, by the way -- we constantly argue amongst ourselves without one).

We embrace diversity as a blessing, you see it as a heresy to be overcome. And when it comes down to it, our religion embraces the idea that you might be right -- for you. But your religion can never acknowlege that we could be right, and we find that unfair and troubling -- especially when there is a tiny minority of hate-mongers using that premise as a pretext to censor, oppress, and ultimately kill us.

We are not unfamiliar with your POV -- heck, most of us used to be devout, believing Christians. But for a variety of reasons we found a better faith -- for ourselves -- in Paganism. Instead of trying to understand the complex theology of our collection of beliefs, many of you cast aspertions on the "silly hedonistic Pagans", not realizing that what has happened with the Pagan movement in the last 25 years signifies a dramatic shift in Western Civilization.

But I ain't offended.

Arion

So you'd say my POV is just as correct as yours?

[Meh_Gerbil]

Emphasis mine. Your fault here is figuring that we each push one deity as the supreme deity, when that is not true. My patroness is Brighead, but I by no means advance her as superior to other deities -- except for me. All this heirachical 'my god is more powerful than your god' stuff is indicative of patriarchal religions. The car needs wheels and an engine to work -- which one is 'supreme'?

Arion

That was just my attempt to find mutually exclusive beliefs within paganism.
Are you claiming there are no mutually exclusive beliefs within the paganism?

[seer]

First, I ain't offended.

Second, I think you are missing one of the major points of Pagan theology, namely the idea that objective "truths" are unimportant. We don't, as a rule, seek a single binding "truth" that we can cling to as objectively as Abrahamics do, nor do we wish one. We don't find it nearly as important as personal truths, admittedly subjective but all the more valuable for being so. We don't care much how or by what means the universe was created, because it has very little effect on our daily lives.

One of the most fundamental aspects of Paganism is the importance of subjective reality, and the tolerance, within reason, of other people's subjective realities. It is only when the objectivists come along and tell us that we don't know anything because we don't have an an autographed copy of a two-thousand year old book that we get pissed off. Otherwise, we tend to be pretty easy going folk.

Part of the problem is that you folks keep wanting to frame this debate exclusively in Judeo-Christian terms, when our axioms are different. For us Wisdom is as important as Faith is to y'all, the Goddess and Her attendent cycles are as important as the Passion to you, and the idea of sin and salvation are completely absent, if not abhorrant. You decry our lack of an objective moral standard, and yet despite this Pagans tend to be highly moral, highly ethical people. You see Death as an enemy, we see it as a natural and inevitable part of life. You see Sex as a sin while we see it as a sacrement. And when we don't have an ancient written text to back up our beliefs and bind us into one constantly arguing community, you throw up your hands and shake your heads and wonder how a bunch of nutters like us could honestly call ourselves a religion. (We don't need an ancient text, by the way -- we constantly argue amongst ourselves without one).

We embrace diversity as a blessing, you see it as a heresy to be overcome. And when it comes down to it, our religion embraces the idea that you might be right -- for you. But your religion can never acknowlege that we could be right, and we find that unfair and troubling -- especially when there is a tiny minority of hate-mongers using that premise as a pretext to censor, oppress, and ultimately kill us.

We are not unfamiliar with your POV -- heck, most of us used to be devout, believing Christians. But for a variety of reasons we found a better faith -- for ourselves -- in Paganism. Instead of trying to understand the complex theology of our collection of beliefs, many of you cast aspertions on the "silly hedonistic Pagans", not realizing that what has happened with the Pagan movement in the last 25 years signifies a dramatic shift in Western Civilization.

But I ain't offended.

Arion

If this is true Arion, then what you are posing is spiritual ignorance. Every man just invents his own religion. No one is right and no one is wrong..

[seer]

Emphasis mine. Your fault here is figuring that we each push one deity as the supreme deity, when that is not true. My patroness is Brighead, but I by no means advance her as superior to other deities -- except for me. All this heirachical 'my god is more powerful than your god' stuff is indicative of patriarchal religions. The car needs wheels and an engine to work -- which one is 'supreme'?

Arion

I don't understand Arion. Is Brighead God or not? Does Brighead communicate to mankind?

[tmancour]

Ok, do you think "she" has communicated to us. I am not arguing for Christianity here. I'am trying to keep on the diversity point for now...


I think that She has communicated with each of us individually -- a mass, all-purpose bulliten would diffuse the message.

Arion

[tmancour]

I don't understand Arion. Is Brighead God or not? Does Brighead communicate to mankind?


Brighead is a divinity -- not the great Cosmic God that you are thinking of, like Jehovah claims to be. She does communicate with mankind, but She does so retail, not wholesale.

Arion

[seer]

Brighead is a divinity -- not the great Cosmic God that you are thinking of, like Jehovah claims to be. She does communicate with mankind, but She does so retail, not wholesale.

Arion

Ok, so the big god does not care for us but the little god does? Why?

[tmancour]

So you'd say my POV is just as correct as yours?


For you, yeah, sure. For me, not so much.

Diversity rules!

Arion

[seer]

For you, yeah, sure. For me, not so much.

Diversity rules!

Arion

You realize that one, or both, of you must be logically wrong - correct?

[tmancour]

Ok, so the big god does not care for us but the little god does? Why?

Whether the Big God, the national god of Israel who says he created everything, cares for us is a matter for Christians, Jews, and Moslems to decide. We've opted out of that arguement. As far as Brighead goes, I know She cares for me and my family because of her manifest actions in my life. Whether She cares for you or not is between you and Her.

A

[tmancour]

You realize that one, or both, of you must be logically wrong - correct?


It ain't a zero-sum game in my book. There isn't a "right way" and a "wrong way". There is a better way for an individual's spirituality. That's all. Right and Wrong in this sense is a pointless pissing contest.

A

[Durthorin]

I can appreciate that -- but I don't see what that has to do with an exclusive belief. I don't think my views on a topic are the final word on it by any stretch of the imagination.

However, taking a hypothetical
Wiccan A believes deity A is the supreme pagan deity.
Wiccan B believes deity B is the supreme pagan deity.

They can be friendly to one another, they can have tea and learn from one another -- but what they cannot be is both correct. That means that one of them is wrong and instead of strength that Wiccan's diversity is introducing error into the community.

I think you miss an esstential difference in the way we view diety and Christians do.

Wiccan A believes deity A is the supreme pagan deity for Wiccan A.
Wiccan B believes deity B is the supreme pagan deity for Wiccan B.
Christian A believes deity C is the supreme deity.

We can be therefore in perfect agreement with each other..unfortunatly we can not be in agreement with Christian A. But since Christian A is not a memeber of our community no error is introduced and we can happily have tea with him and learn from one another. At a basic level, do we think that concept of diety as exclusive is wrong? Unfortunatly, yes. but that is your perception of Diety and frankly not our problem. We believe thats between diety C and those that worship him/her.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Durthorin]

Ok, so the big god does not care for us but the little god does? Why?

From the One came the Two, from the Two the Many. If you understand this concept which you will hear from some Wiccans and does not hold for all Pagans.. The Divine/All Mystery etc has to aspects God & Goddess.. each of them have aspects which many of his interact with.. Zeus, Brighid, Athena etc. If you accept this the "Little Gods" are facets of the "Big God".

Do some of us have mutually exclusive beliefs? Yes. I'd say the one I hear most often in the last few years has to do with Polytheism vs Pantheism. Basically the belief that there is no "Big God" just the "Little Gods". Also some recons who ahve propritary view of their ancestoral gods.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[seer]

From the One came the Two, from the Two the Many. If you understand this concept which you will hear from some Wiccans and does not hold for all Pagans.. The Divine/All Mystery etc has to aspects God & Goddess.. each of them have aspects which many of his interact with.. Zeus, Brighid, Athena etc. If you accept this the "Little Gods" are facets of the "Big God".

Do some of us have mutually exclusive beliefs? Yes. I'd say the one I hear most often in the last few years has to do with Polytheism vs Pantheism. Basically the belief that there is no "Big God" just the "Little Gods". Also some recons who ahve propritary view of their ancestoral gods.

Brighid Bless, Dur

Don't take this the wrong way, but you guys seem pretty much clueless. You get to kind of make it up as you go...

[tmancour]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you guys seem pretty much clueless. You get to kind of make it up as you go...


Don't YOU take it the wrong way, but you guys seem kind of clueless. You kind of give up all pretense of original thought and cling to the ancient written musings of guys like us as if it were the Final Word. Find that amusing. . .

[Meh_Gerbil]

So bascially it is, at least on a theological level, an embrace of the eastern logic system that doesn't have concepts like either/or but rather and/and.

In short, in western logic one man can hold that the sky is blue and another hold that the sky is red. In western logic it is either/or, it cannot be both. For the eastern logician the sky is blue AND red at the same time. (If I get Ravi Zacharis' teaching on that correctly).

Did I get that right, or am I misrepresenting it?

[seer]

Don't YOU take it the wrong way, but you guys seem kind of clueless. You kind of give up all pretense of original thought and cling to the ancient written musings of guys like us as if it were the Final Word. Find that amusing. . .

Truth is truth no matter how old. And what original thought are you speaking of - inventing your own god? Any child can to that...

[tmancour]

So bascially it is, at least on a theological level, an embrace of the eastern logic system that doesn't have concepts like either/or but rather and/and.

In short, in western logic one man can hold that the sky is blue and another hold that the sky is red. In western logic it is either/or, it cannot be both. For the eastern logician the sky is blue AND red at the same time. (If I get Ravi Zacharis' teaching on that correctly).

Did I get that right, or am I misrepresenting it?


Pretty close. But I wouldn't say it was an exclusively Eastern idea. It has been around in the Western tradition for centuries -- just frequently repressed.

A

[tmancour]

Truth is truth no matter how old. And what original thought are you speaking of - inventing your own god? Any child can to that...


Inventing? No. Recognizing? Yes. And every child DOES do that. Until someone comes along in Sunday school and tells him he will burn in Hell for all of eternity if he persists . . .

[Durthorin]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you guys seem pretty much clueless. You get to kind of make it up as you go...

Hardly, but to understand the path we walk you have to set aside some of your own preconceived concepts of diety. As someone else stated you are trying to view Pagan faiths thru a montheistic lens. Personally, its no wonder it makes no sense to you and seems we make it up as we go. Its somewhat like writing a test in Aramaic and then grading the test and assuming everyone that fails doesn't know the answer as opposed to asking "Can you read Aramaic?"

Brighid Bless, Dur

[technomage]

So bascially it is, at least on a theological level, an embrace of the eastern logic system that doesn't have concepts like either/or but rather and/and.

In short, in western logic one man can hold that the sky is blue and another hold that the sky is red. In western logic it is either/or, it cannot be both. For the eastern logician the sky is blue AND red at the same time. (If I get Ravi Zacharis' teaching on that correctly).

Did I get that right, or am I misrepresenting it?

Eh ... not really. On a theological level, we are able to acknowledge both "either/or" and "and/and" logic. The crux of the issue, however, is what might be called the "Theological Uncertainty Principle."

Fundamentally speaking, we cannot objectively determine if the writers of the Bible were writing about the "One True God," or were writing about their understanding of God and claiming (incorrectly) that their God was the only God. Subjectively, I have evidence that my God is God ... and frankly in those experiences, contact with the Divine is overwhelming. It's easy to believe that if you've got contact with the Divine, you're talking to the Ultimate ... but I'm not so proud to claim that my understanding is sufficient.

In other words--is Christ the "Ultimate God?" I can't say that, as my experiences run contrary to such a conclusion. But is Christ your understanding of the Ultimate God? That I can completely affirm, while saying that Kernunos and Aradia are my understanding of the Ultimate God.

I call that wet stuff that comes out of the tap "water." In Mexico, it's called "agua." In Japan, it's "mizu" (provided Google didn't do me wrong.) It's much the same thing--though admittedly, like any analogy it will break down if pushed to far--for the various Names that we call God.

[seer]

Hardly, but to understand the path we walk you have to set aside some of your own preconceived concepts of diety. As someone else stated you are trying to view Pagan faiths thru a montheistic lens.

What concept of deity do you hold? I was told that God doesn't give a rip about humanity. Then we have these lesser gods whom you guys seem to worship. Some believe in reincarnation others don't.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Fundamentally speaking, we cannot objectively determine if the writers of the Bible were writing about the "One True God," or were writing about their understanding of God and claiming (incorrectly) that their God was the only God. Subjectively, I have evidence that my God is God ... and frankly in those experiences, contact with the Divine is overwhelming. It's easy to believe that if you've got contact with the Divine, you're talking to the Ultimate ... but I'm not so proud to claim that my understanding is sufficient.

The pride issue keeps coming up, so I'd like to address this if I might.
When I say that the G_d I worship is the 'one true G_d' I do not make that claim because of any level of understanding I've earned but rather because that is what He claims of Himself - repeatedly.

The term 'pride' makes sense if I claim my knowledge of the gods is such that I've managed to identify the one true 'highest' G_d and identify Him as being such -- but that classification as the one true G_d was made before I was born and He made it of Himself.

That is the claim He made.
I only agree with the claim.

In other words--is Christ the "Ultimate God?" I can't say that, as my experiences run contrary to such a conclusion. But is Christ your understanding of the Ultimate God? That I can completely affirm, while saying that Kernunos and Aradia are my understanding of the Ultimate God.

Do Kernunos and Aradia claim to be the Ultimate G_d?

I call that wet stuff that comes out of the tap "water." In Mexico, it's called "agua." In Japan, it's "mizu" (provided Google didn't do me wrong.) It's much the same thing--though admittedly, like any analogy it will break down if pushed to far--for the various Names that we call God.

The problem is when the terms aren't actually describing the same thing, however. For instance, if the Japanese tell you mizu is flammable, yellow, and makes one's eyes smart you'd realize it isn't the equivalent of what we mean when we say 'water'.

Kernunos and Aradia aren't merely different names for Jehovah because they are making absolutely different statements about who they are, are they not?

Again, I can appreciate diversity from the perspective that it is good to be kind to other people -- basic respect and all that. I hope I communicate that to the Wiccans here and I apologize if I don't. However, the concept is only so good as long as the diversity is within the confines of the truth; otherwise it becomes destructive.

[technomage]

The pride issue keeps coming up, so I'd like to address this if I might.
When I say that the G_d I worship is the 'one true G_d' I do not make that claim because of any level of understanding I've earned but rather because that is what He claims of Himself - repeatedly.

Is it ... or is that what the human authors of the Bible claim?

And that's why I use the term "pride" with reservations, but still chose to use it. MG, we both know the Bible was written by people--yes, we have a difference of opinion about what "inspired" those people, but in the end, we can agree that it was human beings that put pen to paper. Those human beings had sectarian and polemic interests--they wanted to prove that thatir God was "the One."

The claim that the Judeo-Christian "God" is the only God has only one basis: the Bible. And the claim that the Judeo-Christian God is the "One God" is not a claim that can be objectively verified--it must be taken on faith. One commonly cited "proof" of the reliability of the Bible on unverifiable claims is the Bible's claimed accuracy on verifiable claims ... yYet as I have discussed with Seer, the Bible makes certain historical claims that have turned out to be false.

MG, if you present a witness in court who is unreliable, there's a vey good chance that his testimony will be thrown out--or at the very least, disregarded by the jury. To the best evidence I have, the Bible is an unreliable witness.

Do Kernunos and Aradia claim to be the Ultimate G_d?

Not by any understanding I have had.

But I have heard Wiccans who claimed They were. Obviously, I don't accept such claims.

I'm going to snip the rest for the nonce, because you went a different direction with the statements that I made than I intended. If, after you deal with this, you want to backtrack and cover the otehr, I'll be more than glad to discuss it.

[seer]

The claim that the Judeo-Christian "God" is the only God has only one basis: the Bible. And the claim that the Judeo-Christian God is the "One God" is not a claim that can be objectively verified--it must be taken on faith. One commonly cited "proof" of the reliability of the Bible on unverifiable claims is the Bible's claimed accuracy on verifiable claims ... yYet as I have discussed with Seer, the Bible makes certain historical claims that have turned out to be false.

MG, if you present a witness in court who is unreliable, there's a vey good chance that his testimony will be thrown out--or at the very least, disregarded by the jury. To the best evidence I have, the Bible is an unreliable witness.

First Justin, scripture does have it's problems. But by in large it hangs together fairly well and is historically accurate. Second, if the Bible's problems keep you from following Christ why on earth are you a Wiccan? Who is the "ultimate" god? Who are the lesser gods? What is the fate of man after death? Does the ultimate god care for us? Who created the universe? Is the universe god? It seems that you have jumped from the somewhat objective to the completely subjective. Talk about testimonies being thrown out of court.

[technomage]

First Justin, scripture does have it's problems. But by in large it hangs together fairly well and is historically accurate.

So does Metamorphoses by Apuleius, various Norse sagas, and and even Homer's epics. Heck, Seer, by Book of Shadows is more historically accurate than your Bible--if we're going to go on the historical accuracy of texts as proof of the nature of the Divine, your Bible isn't even in the top ten!

Second, if the Bible's problems keep you from following Christ why on earth are you a Wiccan?

Non-sequiter. I am not Wiccan because of claims made in any text.

Who is the "ultimate" god? Who are the lesser gods? What is the fate of man after death? Does the ultimate god care for us? Who created the universe? Is the universe god?

Seer, why pose endless questions when you don't care about the answers? And you don't--your only interest is to argue ... by ridicule, if you have no other argument.

It seems that you have jumped from the somewhat objective to the completely subjective. Talk about testimonies being thrown out of court.

Only because you refuse to accept anything but your idiosyncratic definition of "objective" and "subjective."

Seer, you're as stubborn as a Missouri mule, but you don't have the common sense that the Gods gave to a goose. The more you argue for Christ--and the more I see how empty and vapid your arguments are--the less likely I am to even consider the possibility. You do your chosen causes far more harm than good.

[seer]

Non-sequiter. I am not Wiccan because of claims made in any text.

Ok, then why are you a Wiccan? Why do you serve/worship their gods? And how did you come to know these gods?

Seer, why pose endless questions when you don't care about the answers? And you don't--your only interest is to argue ... by ridicule, if you have no other argument.

Justin, no one here can seem to agree about anything. Except that Christianity is bad. You guys have different gods. Some think the "ultimate" god is one thing, some another. Some believe in reincarnation other don't. Some hold to pantheism other don't. Some think God is personal, others don't. It is a web of confusion Justin, and not one of my making...

Seer, you're as stubborn as a Missouri mule, but you don't have the common sense that the Gods gave to a goose. The more you argue for Christ--and the more I see how empty and vapid your arguments are--the less likely I am to even consider the possibility. You do your chosen causes far more harm than good.

Well I have been called worse, you must be in your kind Thanksgiving Day mood... ; )

[technomage]

Ok, then why are you a Wiccan? Why do you serve/worship their gods? And how did you come to know these gods?

I've posted that already. Search for it.

Except that Christianity is bad.

That's an outright lie, Seer. And you know it. Idiots may prance and pander about Christianity being the source of all evil, but I invite you to search for one time when I've said that.

Well I have been called worse, you must be in your kind Thanksgiving Day mood... ; )

Kind enough to tell you to cut the crap, Seer. Nobody's buying.

[Richbee]

To Seer: So does Metamorphoses by Apuleius,

Don't you mean by Ovid? The Latin or Roman poet?

....various Norse sagas,

Oh? Who? More poets? Bards? Great entertainment for those long winter nights.

....and and even Homer's epics.

Homer was a great poet, and indeed, he invented many tales and many gods as well!? Who really knows?

And, what do these verses mean? When were they written? What is the purpose of the tale? Entertainment?

....Heck, Seer, by Book of Shadows is more historically accurate than your Bible

Can you link me to this text? Author? Origin? Meaning? Purpose?

-if we're going to go on the historical accuracy of texts as proof of the nature of the Divine, your Bible isn't even in the top ten!

Hmmm, you're can't be as ignorant as the statement posted in two dimensional text.

Can you prove any error, or wrong account of history in the Old Testament or New Testament?

Case Study: (Recommended for Fundy Wiccans)

Paul Copan, Ph. D. writes, about the Historicity of the Gospels:

"And when it comes to the Gospels, the question must be raised: What actually motivated the evangelists to write what and as they did? A good case can be made that it was their own experience with Jesus.

Now when it comes to actually examining the historicity of the Gospels, we see remarkable indications of accuracy. Take John's Gospel, which often isn't accepted as reliable history because it contains more developed theological reflection than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Yet this Gospel reveals a first-century Palestinian background rooted in the Old Testament--as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed this through, for instance, their reference to "sons of light" and "sons of darkness."

It also offers exceptional topographical information that has been repeatedly confirmed archaeologically. John's mention of Jacob's well at Sychar (4:5), the pool of Bethesda (with five porticoes) by the Sheep Gate (5:2), the pool of Siloam (9:7), and Solomon's Colonnade (10:23) have had the strong support of archaeology. In light of the extensive usage of the "witness" theme in this Gospel, the author's emphasis is clear that the incidents included can be relied upon (see 21:24). John is even interested in chronology and specific times (1:29, 35, 43: "the next day"; 4:43: "after the two days"). John is also familiar with particular cultural understandings such as the relationship between Jews and Samaritans (4:27), the general view of women in society (4:27), or the nature of Sabbath regulations (5:10)."

[Thomas D. Lea, "The Reliability of History in John's Gospel," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 (Sept. 1995): 387-402.]

PaulCopan.com (www.paulcopan.com/articles/fabricated-stories.html)

EDIT ADD:

16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." [See: Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

(emphasis mine)

"In their case the god of this world has blinded the eyes of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God."

:smile:

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all!

:hungry:

:yummy:

Go Broncos!

[technomage]

Don't you mean by Ovid? The poet.

No, I mean by Apuleius. Look it up.

Oh? Who? More poets? Bards?

Skalds. It's a different language, so it's a different word.

Homer was great poet, and indeed, he invented many tales and many gods as well!? Who really knows?

We can pretty much excluse you from the list, Richbee.

Can you link me to this text?

Nope. Portions of it are online, but you can go google for it yourself.

[Richbee]

Growing up a young and curious boy, I was always fascinated by the Greek myths, and old tales from England.

One of the greatest men of the 20th century was C.S. Lewis, a Christian writer, yet few know that he was first a scholar of Norse mythology and really all mythology.

In his book, Surprised by Joy. (1955) In the chapter: "Light and Shade", he writes of his studies, and I quote:

"...I found Milton, and Yeats, and a book on Celtic mythology, which soon became, if not a rival, yet a humble companion, to Norse. That did me good; to enjoy two mythologies (or three, now that I had begun to love the Greek), fully aware of their differing flavors....

C.S. Lewis writes about his early days of youth, of searching and seeking, when Lewis was an atheist learning about every path or Religion, or Myth. He considered Materialism one week, thought of Jesus as myth another, rejected God, and was even angry at God, because he didn't believe in God. He had many a dark night of his soul, wrestling with his conscience and convictions.

In brief, no one could, or would tell C.S. Lewis what and how to believe, and he did explore and study the many ways or paths. One little known fact is that he considered the Occult, and the old Celtic or Druid pathways, or any number of other myths, and this was well before Gardner and Crowley, or right about that time, they were traveling in and out or around Oxford, England.

Some facts are known here about the origins of ideas or foundational thinking forming some of the thoughts in early Neo-paganism. (Note the old pagan ideas repackaged)

In 1998 Philip G. Davis, a professor of religion at the University of Prince Edward Island, published "Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality," which argued that Wicca was the creation of an English civil servant and amateur anthropologist named Gerald B. Gardner (1884-1964). Davis wrote that the origins of the Goddess movement lay in an interest among the German and French Romantics--mostly men--in natural forces, especially those linked with women. Gardner admired the Romantics and belonged to a Rosicrucian society called the Fellowship of Crotona --a group that was influenced by several late-nineteenth-century occultist groups, which in turn were influenced by Freemasonry. In the 1950's Gardner introduced a religion he called (and spelled) Wica. Although Gardner claimed to have learned Wiccan lore from a centuries-old coven of witches who also belonged to the Fellowship of Crotona, Davis wrote that no one had been able to locate the coven and that Gardner had invented the rites he trumpeted, borrowing from rituals created early in the twentieth century by the notorious British occultist Aleister Crowley, among others. Wiccans today, by their own admission, have freely adapted and embellished Gardner's rites.

BeliefNet.com: Charlotte Allen - The Scholars and the Goddess (www.beliefnet.com/story/63/story_6307.html)



C.S. Lewis (1898 - 1963), and his experiences, and learning of Mythology and the Occult, or Spiritism is an extremely valuable study for all Neopagans who are seeking the truth, and Christians as well. Any who seek truth, can quickly discover how his life and quest for truth occurred in the same space-time continuum as Gardner and Crowley & Co..

"...I came to meet Magicians, Spiritualists, and the like."

(Surprised by Joy, p 178)

He read, what was then called a "modern source", and no doubt the source for Gardner: The Golden Bough, by Sir James George Frazer (www.bartleby.com/br/196.html): A monumental study in comparative folklore, magic and religion, The Golden Bough shows parallels between the rites and beliefs, superstitions and taboos of early cultures and those of Christianity. It had a great impact on psychology and literature and remains an early classic anthropological resource.

King David says to:

Taste and see that the Lord is good"



“gleams of celestial strength and beauty falling on a jungle of filth and imbecility.”



Test the spirits, and beware of bad tasting myths ending in eternal doom, and darkness. :duh:

[technomage]

Test the spirits, and beware of bad tasting myths ending in eternal doom, and darkness. :duh:

Like the Bible?

[seer]

Ok, then why are you a Wiccan? Why do you serve/worship their gods? And how did you come to know these gods?


I've posted that already. Search for it.

No, please link it here. Because Justin I bet you did not merely invent your own gods. You probably took it on someone else's authority (verbal or written) that they existed. My question is - why accept their gods?

[Richbee]

Like the Bible?

Behold God is Love!

Taste the things of God, and drink deeply!

Edit Add:

"If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have nothing in it mysterious or supernatural. If we violate the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous."

- Blaise Pascal

Love

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

(NIV)

[technomage]

Behold God is Love!

And precisely why would I believe this assertion? Or any assertion that you make? You have already lied in coming onto this forum under a different name after being banned twice; first as Richbee, then as Proteus.

Having proven yourself dishonest, why should I believe you?

That's a serious question, Rich: the accusation is at best a side note, but it's a very important side note. Why believe a liar in anything they claim?

[seer]

And precisely why would I believe this assertion? Or any assertion that you make? You have already lied in coming onto this forum under a different name after being banned twice; first as Richbee, then as Proteus.

Having proven yourself dishonest, why should I believe you?

That's a serious question, Rich: the accusation is at best a side note, but it's a very important side note. Why believe a liar in anything they claim?

That is silly Justin. Are you suggesting that you NEVER lied?

[technomage]

That is silly Justin. Are you suggesting that you NEVER lied?
Of course not. But Rich is continuing to lie.

Just as you are continuing to be a fool.

[seer]

Of course not. But Rich is continuing to lie.

Well he should stop...

Just as you are continuing to be a fool.

Totally uncalled for Justin. If you can't defend your beliefs, just say so. Also, you recently chided me for demeaning you, point taken, yet you turn around and call me a fool? There is a name for that behavior brother...

[technomage]

Totally uncalled for Justin.

Is it? One measure of foolishness is continuing to do the same thing over and over again, no matter how badly it backfires on you. You have done this ... more often with Calvinism than with Wicca, to be sure, but you keep using the "arguments" of derision and rhetoric. They've gotten you nowhere ... but you keep on trying.

Under that definition, yes, "fool" is not only called for, but highly accurate. You have been a fool, and you continue to be a fool. When you stop using derision and rhetoric, the assesment will change.

Also, you recently chided me for demeaning you, point taken, yet you turn around and call me a fool?

Seer, I'm not "demeaning" you--your own behavior demeans you far more than I could if I wanted to. All I do is call your attention to your behavior.

If you want the assesment to change, then change the behavior.

[seer]

Under that definition, yes, "fool" is not only called for, but highly accurate. You have been a fool, and you continue to be a fool. When you stop using derision and rhetoric, the assesment will change.

So be it. Just remember what you said here today...

Is it? One measure of foolishness is continuing to do the same thing over and over again, no matter how badly it backfires on you. You have done this ... more often with Calvinism than with Wicca, to be sure, but you keep using the "arguments" of derision and rhetoric. They've gotten you nowhere ... but you keep on trying.

Well it is obvious that I have backed up the Calvinists into a logical corner:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65632

For which they have no answer. Should we put you in the same camp?

Seer, I'm not "demeaning" you--your own behavior demeans you far more than I could if I wanted to. All I do is call your attention to your behavior.

I asked you a very simple question Justin. Why do you believe in the gods that you do. On what authority? For what reasons? You have attacked the veracity of Holy Scripture in this very thread. Do you offer something better? Where are your sacred texts? Or do you just invent gods as you go along?

[technomage]

I asked you a very simple question Justin.

And I told you how to find the answer.

[seer]

And I told you how to find the answer.


What? I'am going to search the whole Tweb - looking for what? It makes me wonder why you don't just link it here.

[technomage]

What? I'am going to search the whole Tweb - looking for what? It makes me wonder why you don't just link it here.

Probably because I'm sick of doing your homework for you.

C'mon, Seer ... it's not all of TWeb. I've only made a bit over six thousand posts. That's just a little over 1/2 of 1 percent of the total posts on TWeb.

[Richbee]

And precisely why would I believe this assertion? Or any assertion that you make? You have already lied in coming onto this forum under a different name after being banned twice; first as Richbee, then as Proteus.

Having proven yourself dishonest, why should I believe you?

That's a serious question, Rich: the accusation is at best a side note, but it's a very important side note. Why believe a liar in anything they claim?

Why poison the well? Are you calling me a "liar"? You have no idea who I am. I have never met you, and I would never presume to know you and your myterious cup of magick.

Justin might be your real name, or maybe another one of your handles or nicknames. Frankly, I don't care, and it doesn't change the arguments posted here. You're moniker and posts are a digital representation of bits and bytes. (Actually a series of "0's" and "1's" known as binary code, but why get into the facts?)

Why attack me? I think you want to change the subject, because your "path" is a work of fiction and/or poetry.

Witchcraft is based on deception and you've been deceived. I have laid open the truth about Wicca or Wicie.

Deal with it!

If you're isolated and alone for Thanksgiving, I am truly sorry, but seriously, I have no idea how you feel better by attacking my moniker?

Have a nice evening! Happy Thanksgiving, and truly I would be tahnkful, if you could only post cogent arguments on topic!

[Richbee]

Like the Bible?

Is not this the real ax (angst) you're grinding your teeth over?

There is no source of the birth, life, teachings and truth assertions of Jesus outside of the New Testament. To quote the four gospels is not circular reasoning as each is an independent account.

“The uniqueness and scandal of the Christian religion, rests in the mediation of revelation through historical events.”

The historical content of the Bible is not mythical or a naïve attempt to contrive object lessons, but an accurate description of reality. (A reality you no doubt wish to avoid.)

Philosopher William Lane Craig comments on this by saying:

To some this is scandalous, because it means that the truth of Christianity is bound up with the truth of certain historical facts, such that if those facts should be disproved, so would Christianity. But at the same time, this makes Christianity unique because we now have a means of verifying its truth by historical evidence.

The Apostle Paul emphatically underscores this in his letter to the Corinthians. He states that there were over five hundred eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, and that if Jesus did not actually rise from the dead then their faith was in vain. Paul unabashedly declared that the central doctrines of the Christian message are related to pivotal historical realities.

Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce writes:

Christianity as a way of life depends upon the acceptance of Christianity as good news. And this good news is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world’s redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time, the kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

If you can't change the facts, I guess you can just ignore them, and resort to attempting to change the subject, or spin your own version of "fantasy" history.

Oh, I guess that brings up more hard truths and facts? :ouch:

[technomage]

Are you calling me a "liar"?

If you have any doubts, re-read the post.

[seer]

Probably because I'm sick of doing your homework for you.

C'mon, Seer ... it's not all of TWeb. I've only made a bit over six thousand posts. That's just a little over 1/2 of 1 percent of the total posts on TWeb.

It seems that you believe in the Lord And Lady. So who are they? Are they the creators of the universe? Lesser gods? And how did you come to find out about them?

[technomage]

It seems that you believe in the Lord And Lady. So who are they? Are they the creators of the universe? Lessr gods? And how did you come to find out about them?

Already posted it. Go fish.

[Richbee]

If you have any doubts, re-read the post.

What would your "goddess" say?

If you can't defend your myth, attack the other posters? Go on, slap me silly, but I can still turn the other cheek. :yes:

[technomage]

What would your "goddess" say?

Probably very much the same thing the God you claim to follow says: A lying witness shall perish.

If you can't defend your myth, attack the other posters?

The most effective defense against lies is to expose them as lies, and those who tell them as liars.

[seer]

Already posted it. Go fish.

No thanks. Obviously you are not confident about your beliefs...

[technomage]

No thanks. Obviously you are not confident about your beliefs...
More derision and empty rhetoric, Seer?

Why am I not surprised...?

[seer]

More derision and empty rhetoric, Seer?

Why am I not surprised...?

I'am not the one avoiding the discussion Justin. I have already searched a couple of threads and for the life me I still do not know what you believe and why. I suspect you don't either... Have the guts to stand up for what you believe man...

[tmancour]

Ok, then why are you a Wiccan? Why do you serve/worship their gods? And how did you come to know these gods?

I came to serve/worship the Old Gods for the same reason anyone enters the Ministry: I was called.



Justin, no one here can seem to agree about anything. Except that Christianity is bad. You guys have different gods. Some think the "ultimate" god is one thing, some another. Some believe in reincarnation other don't. Some hold to pantheism other don't. Some think God is personal, others don't. It is a web of confusion Justin, and not one of my making...


Funny, we don't find it very confusing. And I wouldn't say that "Christianity is bad", merely that some Christians have perverted the words and works of the Prince of Peace into justifications for committing horrific crimes and damaged our culture and future by doing so. As far as agreement on points of theology within the Pagan community, you are correct: it is not dogmatic. It is largely based on personal experience with the gods and a personal path -- which Pagans accept in a tolerant fashion. We understand that every individual path is different, and can respect that. When Pagans start becoming dogmatic, they lose respect in our community -- and that is our primary currency.


Arion

[technomage]

I'am not the one avoiding the discussion Justin.

I'm not avoiding discussion, Seer. When you find the correct post and thread, if you have any questions, I will gladly discuss them with you. But I'm not looking it up for you.

I have already searched a couple of threads and for the life me I still do not know what you believe and why.

Then you have not searched enough. If the subject is that important to you, continue in your search. If it is not important enough for you to continue your search, then I see no reason to discuss something that is not important to you.

I suspect you don't either... Have the guts to stand up for what you believe man...

And yet more derision and rhetoric.

[seer]

I came to serve/worship the Old Gods for the same reason anyone enters the Ministry: I was called.

Which old gods? From what I have studied your beliefs are a fairly new invention. Basically invented by Gerald Gardner with little or no historical basis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

And I do not understand what you mean by called? Did these gods speak to you?

Funny, we don't find it very confusing. And I wouldn't say that "Christianity is bad", merely that some Christians have perverted the words and works of the Prince of Peace into justifications for committing horrific crimes and damaged our culture and future by doing so.

Really? How have present day Christians harmed our culture?

It is largely based on personal experience with the gods and a personal path -- which Pagans accept in a tolerant fashion. We understand that every individual path is different, and can respect that. When Pagans start becoming dogmatic, they lose respect in our community -- and that is our primary currency.

Which means that no one really knows the truth about spiritual matters. Ignorance seems to be the real currency...

[tmancour]

“gleams of celestial strength and beauty falling on a jungle of filth and imbecility.”



I've read Lewis thoroughly, and while I respect his own inner journey, like I do every sincere mystic, I believe in the end he returned to Christianity because that was the cultural matrix in which he was raised. I don't necessarily fault him for that . . . but I don't accept his opinion as an authority. I'd give more credence to Tolkien (I've read the Trilogy over 200 times, now, since boyhood) but that doesn't mean I accept his personal choice of religion as any more valid for me. Indeed, the LOTR trilogy was one of the reasons I became a Pagan. Even wrote an article about it:

http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usnc&c=words&id=8311

Lewis was a 'good poet" but his work stinks of allegory to the point of unreadability in places.

Arion

[Richbee]

Probably very much the same thing the God you claim to follow says: A lying witness shall perish.

The most effective defense against lies is to expose them as lies, and those who tell them as liars.

Some more hubris and personal attacks? Lots of luck with your "path".

Deal with the topics at hand here!

In...."Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality, Philip G. Davis, a professor of religious studies at the University of Prince Edward Island, traces the current preoccupation with the Goddess all the way back to its roots. Those roots, he argues persuasively, turn out to be planted not in the misty terrain of prehistory but in the well–mapped soil of the early nineteenth century, when neopaganism itself was born, along with other manifestations of Romanticism, in reaction to the rationality–obsessed Enlightenment. Davis surveys the archaeological remains of the Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age cultures where feminists claim to have found signs of Goddess worship—caves in Western Europe, the Catal Hayuk settlement in Turkey, prehistoric Malta and the Balkans, and Minoan Crete—and finds little hard evidence to support their theories. Whereas anthropologists of a generation or so ago tended to assume that every painting or carving of a female image at an ancient site depicted an object of worship, their present-day successors are far more cautious about such ascriptions.

The ideologically driven scholarship of Gertrude Rachel Levy, Marija Gimbutas, Riane Eisler, Elinor Gadon, and Elizabeth Gould Davis—which has extrapolated from these artifacts not only a widespread cult of the Goddess in preliterate times, but an entire pacificist, egalitarian, woman–centered civilization—has been either dismissed outright or severely criticized by virtually all serious archaeologists working in the field today. Those sites have actually turned out to contain defense fortifications, masculine symbols, indicia of hierarchical social organization, and other evidence that life back then was neither so utopian nor so gynocentric as the feminists have made it out to be.

Blessed Be???

Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality.

By Philip G. Davis. Spence. 418 pp. $29.95.

Reviewed by Charlotte Allen

First Things.com (www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9902/reviews/allen.html)

[tmancour]

No, please link it here. Because Justin I bet you did not merely invent your own gods. You probably took it on someone else's authority (verbal or written) that they existed. My question is - why accept their gods?


Pagans may discover the existance of a particular deity from a source, verbal or written, but I have yet to meet the Pagan who spent the precious coin of his or her worship on a deity they didn't have direct personal expericence with.

Arion

[seer]

I'm not avoiding discussion, Seer. When you find the correct post and thread, if you have any questions, I will gladly discuss them with you. But I'm not looking it up for you.



Then you have not searched enough. If the subject is that important to you, continue in your search. If it is not important enough for you to continue your search, then I see no reason to discuss something that is not important to you.



And yet more derision and rhetoric.

Ok, I posted my first question under Duder's thread...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=63855

[seer]

Pagans may discover the existance of a particular deity from a source, verbal or written, but I have yet to meet the Pagan who spent the precious coin of his or her worship on a deity they didn't have direct personal expericence with.

Arion

So you met these gods you spoke of? Did they talk to you? Tell you their names?

[tmancour]

I asked you a very simple question Justin. Why do you believe in the gods that you do. On what authority? For what reasons? You have attacked the veracity of Holy Scripture in this very thread. Do you offer something better? Where are your sacred texts? Or do you just invent gods as you go along?


We believe in the gods that we do because we were called to do so, and have personal experience of their wisdom and meaning. Our only authority is the mirror of our own souls. Our reasons are many, but usually can be distilled to one thing: the Old Gods just make more sense to us than Abrahamic relgion, which asks you to take everything it says on Faith alone, which has led to many, many of us being miserable under its oppressive weight. WE DO NOT NEED, NOR DO WE DESIRE, sacred texts. We write our own. Every Wiccan's Book of Shadows is a sacred text, so-called because each book is as individual as the Wiccan's own shadow. We are a religion of personal experience, not blind faith. And, no, we do not blindly "invent" gods -- they reveal themselves to us in very personal and intimate ways.

Arion

[seer]

We believe in the gods that we do because we were called to do so, and have personal experience of their wisdom and meaning. Our only authority is the mirror of our own souls. Our reasons are many, but usually can be distilled to one thing: the Old Gods just make more sense to us than Abrahamic relgion, which asks you to take everything it says on Faith alone, which has led to many, many of us being miserable under its oppressive weight.

Which old gods? How do you know they are old?

WE DO NOT NEED, NOR DO WE DESIRE, sacred texts. We write our own. Every Wiccan's Book of Shadows is a sacred text, so-called because each book is as individual as the Wiccan's own shadow. We are a religion of personal experience, not blind faith. And, no, we do not blindly "invent" gods -- they reveal themselves to us in very personal and intimate ways.

Really? Which god or gods created the universe?

[technomage]

Deal with the topics at hand here!

I am dealing with the topic at hand here ... namely, your reliability as a witness in this or any topic.

[tmancour]

Which old gods? How do you know they are old?


Because they have been worshipped since we chased mastodons across the tundra. It was the religion of the people before the Christians came and convinced everyone to worship a book and give them ten percent for the privilege.


Really? Which god or gods created the universe?


That's my point, Seer, it doesn't matter which ones created the universe. The universe exists, however it got here, and speculating on its origin is pointless. There is literally no way to know. So Wiccans have, for the most part, abandoned the whole "God as Demiurge" thing and focused on living their daily lives.

Arion

[technomage]

So Wiccans have, for the most part, abandoned the whole "God as Demiurge" thing and focused on living their daily lives.

Not all of us ... but you're quite correct that "living our daily lives" is a higher priority. Indeed, if you can't live your daily life, then knowing God (by any name) is actually causing more harm than good.

[Richbee]

I've read Lewis thoroughly, and while I respect his own inner journey, like I do every sincere mystic, I believe in the end he returned to Christianity because that was the cultural matrix in which he was raised.

It may not surprise you that C.S. Lewis' own testimony refutes this notion. He tried it and he liked it. You could say, he "followed his bliss".

...I don't necessarily fault him for that . . . but I don't accept his opinion as an authority. I'd give more credence to Tolkien (I've read the Trilogy over 200 times, now, since boyhood) but that doesn't mean I accept his personal choice of religion as any more valid for me. Indeed, the LOTR trilogy was one of the reasons I became a Pagan. Even wrote an article about it:

Sure, very nice fantasy literature, but not only was JRRT' a Christian, but he wrote or weaved in a Christian theme.

Good Vs. Evil, and the quest to end evil.

In the end, Satan (the Dragon if you will) is doomed and thrown into the lake of fire.

Earth, or "middle-Earth" is redeemed and we or the Hobbits as it were, live in peace.

[Richbee]

I am dealing with the topic at hand here ... namely, your reliability as a witness in this or any topic.

You just can't deal with the truth here. I posted my sources and hotlinks, and you've been refuted, repudiated and rebuked.

Bye-bye.

[tmancour]

Which old gods? From what I have studied your beliefs are a fairly new invention. Basically invented by Gerald Gardner with little or no historical basis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca



You haven't studied enough Gardner brought the subject back to light -- almost any Wiccan will admit that he injected a fair amount of his own personality into his original BoS. But that is his preogative according to our theology. My own BoS has very little from Gardener, more from Valiente.

We are not concerned that we are an emergent religion. Plenty of Christian cults out there have been founded since Gardener wrote High Magick's Aid.

Personally? Brighead called me, and is my Patroness. But I worship all the gods in their turn, and in their Aspects.

And I do not understand what you mean by called? Did these gods speak to you?



Really? How have present day Christians harmed our culture?


Pursuing an economic model that destroys the environment; supporting a brutal occupation in Palestine that betrays our principals as Americans; attempting to impose their beliefs on a secular pluralistic society; promoting social models that directly cause harm to women; coming out against condom use is sub-Saharan Africa, directly leading to the spread of HIV/AIDS; denegrating sexuality in America in such a way as to seek to deny free expression of sexual identity.

That's a few off the top of my head. The really bad damage was done centuries ago, and we're still recovering from it.


Which means that no one really knows the truth about spiritual matters. Ignorance seems to be the real currency...

No, it means EVERYONE knows the truth about spiritual matters. It's just a matter of being allowed to pursue that truth without being told you're going to go to hell if you persist.

Arion

[seer]

Because they have been worshipped since we chased mastodons across the tundra. It was the religion of the people before the Christians came and convinced everyone to worship a book and give them ten percent for the privilege.

Then give me their names and your historical evidence that they existed then.


That's my point, Seer, it doesn't matter which ones created the universe. The universe exists, however it got here, and speculating on its origin is pointless. There is literally no way to know. So Wiccans have, for the most part, abandoned the whole "God as Demiurge" thing and focused on living their daily lives.

I would say that living our lives and knowing who the true God is are both very important. Are you saying that you don't know who created what?

[tmancour]

Sure, very nice fantasy literature, but not only was JRRT' a Christian, but he wrote or weaved in a Christian theme.

Good Vs. Evil, and the quest to end evil.

In the end, Satan (the Dragon if you will) is doomed and thrown into the lake of fire.

Earth, or "middle-Earth" is redeemed and we or the Hobbits as it were, live in peace.


Christianity has no monopoly of Good vs. Evil as a concept, and Tolkien says himself (through Gandalf) that the quest did not end Evil. It merely ended an expression of evil.

Arion

[tmancour]

Then give me their names and your historical evidence that they existed then.


Brighead certainly existed: whole nations were named for Her. Are you denying that there were paleo-Pagan divinities?!?



I would say that living our lives and knowing who the true God is are both very important. Are you saying that you don't know who created what?

I not only don't know, I know that it is Unknowable. Sure, I can speculate and ruminate, but any answer I give will be as much myth as any other. It doesn't really concern me or the practice of my religion.

Arion

[Richbee]

Brighead certainly existed: whole nations were named for Her. Are you denying that there were paleo-Pagan divinities?!?

Are you referring to Britannia?

A Romano-Celtic (British) tutelary goddess?

I am quite sure that the spread of the Good News or Gospel ended the worship of this goddess. The notion that this existed throughout the ages is a fantasy of modern neopagans.

[tmancour]

Are you referring toBritianna?

Spelling?

I am quite sure that the spread of the Good News or Gospel ended the worship of this goddess. The notion that this existed throughout the ages is a fantasy of modern neopagans.


Britianna was a derivation of Her name. Her cult has existed since at least 700 BCE and probably earlier. She was the central goddess of the Brigantes in Northern England, but She was also venerated in Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, Ireland and Scotland. And Her worship survived, even with a Christian veneer. And I can attest that Her worship is not ended today. There is even an on-line Order dedicated to Her. You might be interested to know that both Pagans and Christians participate in Her Order.

Arion

[Durthorin]

Are you referring to Britannia?

A Romano-Celtic (British) tutelary goddess?

I am quite sure that the spread of the Good News or Gospel ended the worship of this goddess. The notion that this existed throughout the ages is a fantasy of modern neopagans.

Ended?? How odd? I didn't know I have not been worshiping Brighid (another variation of the spelling) for 20 years. Hmmmm.. thank you for telling me all those people in Circle with me are figments of my imagination.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Richbee]

Britianna was a derivation of Her name. Her cult has existed since at least 700 BCE and probably earlier. She was the central goddess of the Brigantes in Northern England, but She was also venerated in Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, Ireland and Scotland. And Her worship survived, even with a Christian veneer. And I can attest that Her worship is not ended today. There is even an on-line Order dedicated to Her. You might be interested to know that both Pagans and Christians participate in Her Order.

Arion

Oh no, not the Saint Bridget confusion again? Can you accept that a daughter of a famous Druid became a Christian about the time of Saint Patrick?

She was not and is not worshipped as a goddess by Christians, rather given reverance as a Saint. Although, some Prot's would accuse RCC's of worshipping them.

Look, you have little or no historical evidence to go on, since the manuscripts containing texts relating to Irish mythology have failed to survive, and much more material was probably never committed to writing. (Although Folktales would be another story.)

See:

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Irish+mythology&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1


Bríg: the Root of the Name

The syllable bríg has a variety of meanings. It is used in many Celtic place names where it means "high" or "exalted." The root also incorporates a sense of power, force, or vigor, as well as flame. All these attributes have been associated with both goddesses and saints whose names incorporate bríg. It may be that the names incorporating this root are titles rather than proper names.

More, and this doesn't help is, but points out our collective lack of objective sources and definitive meanings here:

Quote:

Archaeological evidence: inscriptions of Celtic goddesses on statues and other artifacts give us the names for the goddesses Brigindo, Brigantia, and Bricta. The symbols and other elements used to depict each goddess tell us about what concerns she was thought to govern. The types of sites where the statues and inscriptions are found also tell us about how the goddesses were venerated by the various Celtic groups.

River names: the names of rivers tell us that these goddesses were probably associated with rivers.

Place names: the names of towns and settlements may tell us where goddesses were worshipped. However, since the element bríg can simply denote a high or fortified place, it would be unwise to assume that each place name derives from a goddess.

Myths, hagiography, and folktales: the stories of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and Brittany about St. Brigid tell us something about the original goddess figure behind the stories. However, all these stories have come to us through a Christian context and certainly have been reworked, to what extent we cannot be sure. However, it may be that some sites and practices originally associated with other goddesses and saints have been attributed to St. Brigid as her figure gained in importance over time.

Folk practices: many of the folk practices, charms, and prayers collected by folklorists are associated with St. Brigid. Holy wells in particular have been associated with St. Brigid in folklore and devotional practice (MacNeill, 406; Ó Cátháin, pp. 25, 57).

http://www.applewarrior.com/celticwell/ejournal/imbolc/brighid.htm

Brigida (5), V., abbess of Kildare?Feb. 1, 523. The designation "Fiery Dart" seems peculiarly appropriate for "the Mary of Ireland," who, although her fame on the continent is eclipsed by the greater reputation there of her namesake the widow-saint of Sweden, yet stands forth in history with a very marked individuality, though the histories that have come down to us are mainly devoted to a narrative of the signs and wonders which God wrought by her. As to her Acts, Colgan has published six Lives in his Trias Thaumaturga, and the Bollandists five. It is more difficult to trace the historical points in St. Bridget's life than to recount the legendary accretions which testify to a basis of fact, could we but find it after so many centuries. In the legend there is no little beauty, and in almost all we find an undercurrent of true human feeling and deep Christian discernment. (See some of them given at length in Bp. Forbes's Kal. Scott. Saints, 288 seq., from Bo룥, Breviary of Aberdeen, and Colgan's Tr. Thaum. For a full and critical account of her life, see Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. i. 68, 335, and chaps. viii. and ix. passim; Todd, Book of Hymns, i. 65 seq.; O'Hanlon, Ir. Saints, ii. 1 seq.; Baring-Gould, Lives of the Saints, ii. 14 seq.) Her chief residence was the monastery of Kildare, "cella quercus," which she founded; but affiliated houses of both men and women ("de utroque sexu") were raised all over the country, she being abbess above all other abbesses, and the bishop with her at Kildare being similarly above all bishops in her other monasteries. Montalembert (Monks of the West, Edin. ii. 393-395) gives an account of St. Brigida and her monasteries, and places her birth at A.D. 467 and her death at A.D. 525. He says, "There are still 18 parishes in Ireland which bear the name of Kilbride or the Church of Bridget" (ib. ii. p. 395, n.). The Irish annals, however, vary as to the date of her death, but the most probable, and resting on highest authority, is A.D. 523 (O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Scrip. iv. 13; Bp. Forbes, Kal. Scott. Saints, 287). In Scotland the cultus of this saint was very extensive, her dedications being chiefly found in the parts nearest to Ireland and under Irish influence. (For a short list see Bp. Forbes, Kal. Scott. Saints, 290-291.)

http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/iii.ii.xxv.htm#iii.ii.xxv

A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, published by John Murray, London, 1911

[technomage]

You just can't deal with the truth here. I posted my sources and hotlinks, and you've been refuted, repudiated and rebuked.

Clutch is Richbee.
* Clutch: "you've been refuted, repudiated and rebuked." (This post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1280051&postcount=159))
* Richbee: "you are refuted, repudiated and retorted" (This post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=991270&postcount=77)

Between the striking similarity of style, interests, and references, the identical phrasing is conclusive.

Game, set, match.

[Richbee]

Ended?? How odd? I didn't know I have not been worshiping Brighid (another variation of the spelling) for 20 years. Hmmmm.. thank you for telling me all those people in Circle with me are figments of my imagination.

Brighid Bless, Dur

Another Myth by a different name is still a myth.

Case Study:

Danu

by Micha F. Lindemans

The Irish/Celtic earth goddess, matriarch of the Tuatha Dé Danann ("People of the goddess Danu"). Danu is the mother of various Irish gods, such as the Dagda (also mentioned as her father), Dian Cecht, Ogma, Lir, Lugh, and many others. Her Welsh equivalent is the goddess Don.

http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/celtic/articles.html

How does a mythical "goddess" have off-spring?

[Richbee]

Clutch is Richbee.
* Clutch: "you've been refuted, repudiated and rebuked." (This post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1280051&postcount=159))
* Richbee: "you are refuted, repudiated and retorted" (This post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=991270&postcount=77)

Between the striking similarity of style, interests, and references, the identical phrasing is conclusive.

Game, set, match.

There is only one Clutch Cargo.

Game over!

[tmancour]

Oh no, not the Saint Bridget confusion again? Can you accept that a daughter of a famous Druid became a Christian about the time of Saint Patrick?


Certainly. She was named for the Goddess. And she did convert to Christianity (it was all the fashion at the time) and the priestesses at the grove of Kildare ("cill dara", hill of the oak -- a druidic meaning) became nuns -- not in the oppressive Latin sense, but in the empowering manner of the Celtic church. And all of the attributes (that the Christians coveted) were taken with her. And, no doubt, she was the "foster mother to Christ" as her haigiography says, despite having lived several centuries after Christ.

Pagans recognize the assumption of Christian veneer for many of the Old Gods. Brighead is lucky: her cult survived more-or-less intact. Danu, who became St. Anne in most parishes, wasn't as lucky. Neither were most of the male gods.

But it seems as if you are doubting the existance of a pre-christian divinity known as Brighead. Am I wrong?


She was not and is not worshipped as a goddess by Christians, rather given reverance as a Saint. Although, some Prot's would accuse RCC's of worshipping them.


How many of those "Christians" forgot that She was an exalted goddess? And believe me, it only bothers her a little that She had to don the cross. But the deity remains centuries older than Christianity, and venerated as a saint or worshipped as a goddess, the difference is minor to Her . . . and to us. She is worshipped now, and that is what is important.


Arion

[tmancour]

Another Myth by a different name is still a myth.

Case Study:

Danu

by Micha F. Lindemans

The Irish/Celtic earth goddess, matriarch of the Tuatha Dé Danann ("People of the goddess Danu"). Danu is the mother of various Irish gods, such as the Dagda (also mentioned as her father), Dian Cecht, Ogma, Lir, Lugh, and many others. Her Welsh equivalent is the goddess Don.

http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/celtic/articles.html

How does a mythical "goddess" have off-spring?

How does a mythical "one true god" have offspring without a Divine Mother?

[Durthorin]

Another Myth by a different name is still a myth.

Case Study:

Danu

by Micha F. Lindemans

The Irish/Celtic earth goddess, matriarch of the Tuatha Dé Danann ("People of the goddess Danu"). Danu is the mother of various Irish gods, such as the Dagda (also mentioned as her father), Dian Cecht, Ogma, Lir, Lugh, and many others. Her Welsh equivalent is the goddess Don.

http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/celtic/articles.html

How does a mythical "goddess" have off-spring?

How does your God conceive a "Son"?

Brighid & Danu Bless, Dur

[seer]

I not only don't know, I know that it is Unknowable. Sure, I can speculate and ruminate, but any answer I give will be as much myth as any other. It doesn't really concern me or the practice of my religion.

Arion


How do you know that God is unknowable?

[Durthorin]

How do you know that God is unknowable?

Here is a real world example. Consider for a moment the difference in intelect, power etc between you and an ant. Can the ant "know" you? Or at best given its limited senses and intelect can it see you only as a vast cliff or wall, as a force? Now, you believe that God is knowable.. How? If you state as most Christians do that God is all knowing, all seeing.. perfect and eternal. How can you know such a being? Speaking of a personal relationship with such a being is you'll pardon the anlogy.. like a dog saying it has a personal relationship with a Cray supercomputer.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[seer]

Here is a real world example. Consider for a moment the difference in intelect, power etc between you and an ant. Can the ant "know" you? Or at best given its limited senses and intelect can it see you only as a vast cliff or wall, as a force? Now, you believe that God is knowable.. How? If you state as most Christians do that God is all knowing, all seeing.. perfect and eternal. How can you know such a being? Speaking of a personal relationship with such a being is you'll pardon the anlogy.. like a dog saying it has a personal relationship with a Cray supercomputer.

Brighid Bless, Dur

Well Durthorin, that doesn't quite work. Yes we are limited but that does not mean that we can not grasp His character to a large degree. Not totally of course. That God is a moral being, He has particular moral preference. Has specific attributes,etc... And that because we are created in His image we can comprehend His nature - again to degrees. And remember in the Christian model, God became an ant - therefore could speak to us in antanese...

Also Dur, let's say that God did have moral preferences. Let's say that He prefered that we love our neighbor rather than kill our neighbor - what would prevent Him from communicating that information to us?

[seer]

Pursuing an economic model that destroys the environment;

What does that have to do with Christianity? Asia, China and India do the same...


supporting a brutal occupation in Palestine that betrays our principals as Americans;

The Jewish occupation has more to do with self-defense than anything else. You would support the Palestinans who have sworn to destroy the Jewish nation.

attempting to impose their beliefs on a secular pluralistic society;

Just like liberals try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. That's politics brother...


promoting social models that directly cause harm to women;

How?

coming out against condom use is sub-Saharan Africa, directly leading to the spread of HIV/AIDS;

Nonsense. Sexual promiscuity cause AIDs...


denegrating sexuality in America in such a way as to seek to deny free expression of sexual identity.

What - you want more AIDs, STD's, broken families, and broken hearts?

[Richbee]

How does your God conceive a "Son"?

Brighid & Danu Bless, Dur

By super-natural power, through the Holy Spirit.

Where has the power of the Lord or Lady or both been demonstrated?

Is there a likeness in off-spring?

Oh, and with all the PR and media for the Goddess, I bet the god's are feeling slighted.

[Richbee]

Certainly. She was named for the Goddess.

No doubt a common name, and if her Mom and Dad were Druids, I guess they could attach any meaning that wanted. Hard to tell.

Now, what was her name? I do appreciate that Celtic writing is difficult to translate into English.

Briget? Bridget? Bride?

And she did convert to Christianity (it was all the fashion at the time)

Oh? Did everyone convert? What would be the sign? Did some really receive Christ as savior and LORD?

..... and the priestesses at the grove of Kildare ("cill dara", hill of the oak -- a druidic meaning) became nuns

Really? Who were they? What were their names?

.... -- not in the oppressive Latin sense, but in the empowering manner of the Celtic church.

Saint Patrick wasn't a "celtic" Christian, or leader of a Celtic Church.

He preached and Baptized in the nane of Jesus, and the Irish in this case, became part of the catholic or universal church. (Note, the small "c")

There was no Roman Catholic Church at that time. Although many Christains in the West spoke and wrote in Latin, and many in the East - Greek, or in Eygpt - Coptic.

.....And all of the attributes (that the Christians coveted) were taken with her.

Oh? Well at least she had the freedom to serve God as she pleased, and to remain a virgin, and not to marry.(Note: Child birth was the most dangerous event for women in the Roman or Celtic lands, and with Christianity women started living longer, as some, choose to remain virgins. Lucky for me, not all did so!)

Pagans recognize the assumption of Christian veneer for many of the Old Gods. Brighead is lucky: her cult survived more-or-less intact. Danu, who became St. Anne in most parishes, wasn't as lucky. Neither were most of the male gods.

No, with Christ all things become new, and although some silly pagan folklore has remained, but of little meaning or consequence. Like lucky charms or four leaf clovers. Rabbits can be pictures or examples of fertility and hop and play in the Springtime. How sweet, and a pleasant tale for children, or stew for the pot.

But it seems as if you are doubting the existance of a pre-christian divinity known as Brighead. Am I wrong?

Brig meant "high places" or fertility goddess. Difficult to really know, as little empirical evidence has survived, save of rock engravings. LOL! :lolo:

The Christian Saint, in no way has any of the same meaning as a pagan goddess of fertility with the Baal like rites of a whore for the pimping Priest. (Customers left money or some kind of trade in kind. Some business too, the oldest in the World!)

Ooops, you see, we've come full circle back to Asherah, or Aphrodite or Istar of Babylon.

Yep, the Whore of Babylon destined for the lake of fire. ouch! :flaming:

:ponder:

[Durthorin]

By super-natural power, through the Holy Spirit.

Where has the power of the Lord or Lady or both been demonstrated?


In you and I, we are both Her children.


Is there a likeness in off-spring?


See mirror.


Oh, and with all the PR and media for the Goddess, I bet the god's are feeling slighted.

Not really, we worship the Gods as well.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Durthorin]

Well Durthorin, that doesn't quite work. Yes we are limited but that does not mean that we can not grasp His character to a large degree. Not totally of course. That God is a moral being, He has particular moral preference. Has specific attributes,etc... And that because we are created in His image we can comprehend His nature - again to degrees. And remember in the Christian model, God became an ant - therefore could speak to us in antanese...

Also Dur, let's say that God did have moral preferences. Let's say that He prefered that we love our neighbor rather than kill our neighbor - what would prevent Him from communicating that information to us?

We can grasp only what is within our ability to grasp, no more. As such on and infinite being would be beyond that scope of understanding. Like a dog that understands he will be punished if he gets on the furniture but not why getting furniture is bad. Is God a moral being? Why does he do what he does? He has a preference but that does not make it moral unless you define "whatever" God wants as moral.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[seer]

We can grasp only what is within our ability to grasp, no more. As such on and infinite being would be beyond that scope of understanding. Like a dog that understands he will be punished if he gets on the furniture but not why getting furniture is bad.

Except we can understand why getting the furniture wet is bad.

Is God a moral being? Why does he do what he does? He has a preference but that does not make it moral unless you define "whatever" God wants as moral.

Ok a basic question. Let's say that God cares for humanity - could He commuincate that fact to us? What would prevent Him from doing so?

[Richbee]

In you and I, we are both Her children.



See mirror.



Not really, we worship the Gods as well.

Brighid Bless, Dur

All this Goddess craze has the gods PO'd.

Dogda or whatever his name is will make all you Wicca fans pay!

A good goddess respects the god, no?