Paganism

[Amy Sweet]

And it is most likely this flexibility which has enamored the individual in society, those who don't fit in. For many, it represents something that isn't forced onto them by a machinistic world, but that they can grow into and tailor into the things they already believe in by heart. At least that's been how I've noticed it. Again, like all theories on paganism and Wicca it does not begin or even presume to tell everyone's story.

Don't you know, it can't *be* a religion if it's flexible, or if it let's you deside things about your belief or religious practices for yourself, or if it includes differing or contradictory views.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: I have to agree on delusional lol

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
Not trying any more are ya?

That's ok, neither am I.

Well... here's a shiny hat for you then.

You are an educated moron. YOu can't see the forest for the trees- or the intent of someones message for there imperfect word choice or use of Logic.

All hail the god of PHfuckingD's in Logic.

I'm an educated man. I can see the forest for the trees. And I'm SO not the only one who sees wood's points as thin and prima facia just erroneous. More people should hail the god of PhD's in Logic. We rock.

She(?) never even said the world was subjective. She is trying to say that *YOUR* religion is just as if not more subjective as hers.

First, wood DID say that everything was subjective. Read back. Its there. Second, Christianity, amongst all of its flaws, is a hallmark of a strict belief in the LACK of subjectivity in the world. People are not architects of their own universe, God is an existant, His Laws are absolute, the universe is not at the behest or preference of the subjects (that's subjectivism in a nutshell). On top of saying that eveything was subjective, wood was wrong in that Christianity is so anti-subjective that its rigid and lacks the ability, greatly, to adapt itself philosophically.

Because you were being a moron and an ass by insisting that 'harm none' is so subjective it could include killing your children.

I'm saying that if the entirely of Paganism is subjective, by nature, then "harm" has no objective referrent--that's true by basic Logic. Earl says that Wicca, specifically, isn't subjective in that there are objectives within it. I even agreed that the existance of such objectives made MUCH more rational sense. Look it up. Its also there.

Apparently Christianity isn't subjective, it's just contradictory. Well whop-de-fucking-do is that supposed to be a point for it?

The contradiction of Biblical interpretation is not relavent to the subject of whether Christianity is subjective. The existance of God (as a point) is relavent to the subject of whether Christianity is even really referrant. But, that's a metaphysical question. Read a book. Take a class.

She's trying to compare *christian morality* with *pagan morality* on the terms that you named. CAN YOU AS A GOOD CHRISTIAN/PAGAN WHATEVER, FOLLOW THE MORAL CODE AND KILL YOUR CHILDREN. You brought it up, siting it as some apparent flaw in her code. It is clear that you can not kill your child without causing harm- but it appears that you *can* kill your child while following the will of GOD.

Christian morality would say that because there is an objectivity about the nature of all things (physical reality, moral reality, spiritual reality, etc.) that one's preference cannot change, the rules are also objective. So, killing the child would be wrong.

As wood was saying about Subjectivity... if everything were subjective, and if Paganism is the hallmark of subjective everything, then there are no "rules" save those you make or accept as the right ones. One person's version of morality is no more real than another's. Again, basic logic. Earl specified that there is an objective sort of morality. Which I responded to and said that in the case of these objective things, that makes "way more sense", rationally.

Again, look it up. Its there.

So really, in terms of your question about weather or not pagans could kill children and it would be wicca-cool-

WHAT IS *YOUR* FUCKING POINT?

That if everything is subjective within Paganism/Wicca, then one could be a good Pagan/Wiccan by doing absolutely anything they wanted, including things that could be cruel or "inhumane" or harmful (in an objective sense; because, obviously, with a lack of objectivity, there would be no grounds for words like those). As such, I think "everything is subjective" is senseless.

Just because you are better at arguing others in circles and you TEACH logic, therefor your arguments are all beautiful and logical and rational and acedemic- DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT.

But, it also doesn't make me wrong. Best thing to do there is weigh the soundness of each argument, and the fallaciousness of each argument, and come to necessary conclusions about their merit without getting all buh-jiggidy about it.

And well, if this is harsh- so is calling a newbe a moron because they don't know the ins and outs of your fucking holy sacred discipline of LOGIC.

I called wood a moron because the points wood was making were ignorant and so aggressively ignorant that I could find no other word to express the level of rational-vacancy and basic informational-competancy to describe it. Newbie-ness to a message board doesn't justify "wrong".

And, yes, Logic is sacred. Greatest human tool ever. Kudos to you for pointing that out. Here's another shiny hat.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to agree on delusional lol

Well... here's a shiny hat for you then.



Hey, thanks.



I'm an educated man. I can see the forest for the trees. And I'm SO not the only one who sees wood's points as thin and prima facia just erroneous. More people should hail the god of PhD's in Logic. We rock.



ohh, big words. those of us who've never taken a single course in Logic should all pack up and go home. We don't know anything.

First, wood DID say that everything was subjective. Read back. Its there.

I'll look, but assuming that she hit on one of your many little bugaboos- well, obviously that negates anything she might have said or been trying to say.

Second, Christianity, amongst all of its flaws, is a hallmark of a strict belief in the LACK of subjectivity in the world. People are not architects of their own universe, God is an existant, His Laws are absolute, the universe is not at the behest or preference of the subjects (that's subjectivism in a nutshell). On top of saying that eveything was subjective, wood was wrong in that Christianity is so anti-subjective that its rigid and lacks the ability, greatly, to adapt itself philosophically.



Hmm, sounds like Catholicism, but not christianity as a whole.

I was raised a protostant. It's subjective- why? Because the bible is interpreted differently by everybody who interprets it. And of course they all claim that there's is the *only* way to interpret it.

So yeah, within each interpretation, it may be rigid, but overall it is subjective.

And then, there are also the liberal churches which aren't all that rigid at all. Most christians tend to think 'Christianity' means the type that they were raised to believe in, but taking the many beliefs that fall under the umbrella of christianity, and the fact that people are free to chose which denomination (if any) to follow, shows that people pretty much are the achitects of there own universe. By choosing a denomination, you choose for yourself what to believe in God. (And in fact, I read this on a nice patient and official Catholic site explaining why true christians are Catholic.)


I'm saying that if the entirely of Paganism is subjective, by nature, then "harm" has no objective referrent--that's true by basic Logic. Earl says that Wicca, specifically, isn't subjective in that there are objectives within it. I even agreed that the existance of such objectives made MUCH more rational sense. Look it up. Its also there.



The contradiction of Biblical interpretation is not relavent to the subject of whether Christianity is subjective. The existance of God (as a point) is relavent to the subject of whether Christianity is even really referrant. But, that's a metaphysical question. Read a book. Take a class.



Book. What's that???



Christian morality would say that because there is an objectivity about the nature of all things (physical reality, moral reality, spiritual reality, etc.) that one's preference cannot change, the rules are also objective. So, killing the child would be wrong.

As wood was saying about Subjectivity... if everything were subjective, and if Paganism is the hallmark of subjective everything, then there are no "rules" save those you make or accept as the right ones. One person's version of morality is no more real than another's. Again, basic logic. Earl specified that there is an objective sort of morality. Which I responded to and said that in the case of these objective things, that makes "way more sense", rationally.

Again, look it up. Its there.



That if everything is subjective within Paganism/Wicca, then one could be a good Pagan/Wiccan by doing absolutely anything they wanted, including things that could be cruel or "inhumane" or harmful (in an objective sense; because, obviously, with a lack of objectivity, there would be no grounds for words like those). As such, I think "everything is subjective" is senseless.



actually, well yeah, you can. Because not all paganism is love and light. There are dark cruel and inhumane religions that also fall under the umbrella of "Pagan"

And there are dark cruel and inhumane groups that fall under the umbrella of christianity. Like "God hate's Fags" groups and abortion clinic bombers and well, even the KKK claims to be christian. so again- what's your point? Must something be *good* to be a religion too? Must it make sence? Because plenty about religions that you admit are religions don't make sense.

So like if we kill a newborn every full moon- how does that prove weather we are or are not a religion anyway?

What I believe she was trying to say about subjectivity (and when she said "everything is subjective" id wager she was talking about 'when it comes to beliefs') was that all religion is subjective- and that paganism as an umbrella is subjective. It doens't mean you do whatever you want- it means you decide on your beliefs and your morals- you choose what you believe is right and wrong (subjective, you decide for yourself amoung existing beliefs and with your conciounce as guide) and then you follow that belief system. She says it's subjective, because she realized that not everyone will agree with her and she's ok with that. Maybe subjective was the wrong word, but I felt I understood her points until you started deconstructing them with your relentless logic.

So no, I don't think you can see the forest for the trees because I almost never see you trying to understand what anyone is trying to say, despite our flaws as logic impaired mere mortals. Rather, I think you either go out of the way to misunderstand what they are saying, or you are just so damn smart up there that the rest of us are just to dum to make any sence to your brilliantly educated ears.

I don't think people come here expecting they are going to have to take a Logic exam.

If this were a National debate it would make sence for you to attack every weak point to make an argument fall apart, rather than trying to understand what the person is really saying. But all I ever see you do is pick everything apart with your scapal of logic.

I don't agree with everything she said, and she did make some errors. but I feel defensive of her, because the very first thing you did was put her on the offensive and then cried foul when *she* wasn't playing fair. But I'm sure you didn't know that nearly accusing pagans of sacrifising babies is a major hot button. YOu were just pointing out a logical inconsistancy.

But, it also doesn't make me wrong. Best thing to do there is weigh the soundness of each argument, and the fallaciousness of each argument, and come to necessary conclusions about their merit without getting all buh-jiggidy about it.



I called wood a moron because the points wood was making were ignorant and so aggressively ignorant that I could find no other word to express the level of rational-vacancy and basic informational-competancy to describe it. Newbie-ness to a message board doesn't justify "wrong".

And, yes, Logic is sacred. Greatest human tool ever. Kudos to you for pointing that out. Here's another shiny hat.

Fuck logic. I don't want your hat.

 

[English Lady]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to agree on delusional lol

Fuck logic. I don't want your hat.

Can I have it?



(sorry couldn't resisit!)

 

[Amy Sweet]

'harm' has no objective referant- but 'god' does?

I beg to differ.

I think this is what she saying about things being subjective.

Like it or not- god is subjective. To each religion, sect or denomination maybe he's not- but the idea of God is, way more than the idea of harm.

You can at least see harm.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to agree on delusional lol

Can I have it?



(sorry couldn't resisit!)

help yourself.

 

[Sunnie]

Re: Re: Re: I have to agree on delusional lol

Amy, I think I love you.

Not trying any more are ya?

That's ok, neither am I.

You are an educated moron. YOu can't see the forest for the trees- or the intent of someones message for there imperfect word choice or use of Logic.

All hail the god of PHfuckingD's in Logic.

She(?) never even said the world was subjective. She is trying to say that *YOUR* religion is just as if not more subjective as hers.

Because you were being a moron and an ass by insisting that 'harm none' is so subjective it could include killing your children.

Apparently Christianity isn't subjective, it's just contradictory. Well whop-de-fucking-do is that supposed to be a point for it? She's trying to compare *christian morality* with *pagan morality* on the terms that you named. CAN YOU AS A GOOD CHRISTIAN/PAGAN WHATEVER, FOLLOW THE MORAL CODE AND KILL YOUR CHILDREN. You brought it up, siting it as some apparent flaw in her code. It is clear that you can not kill your child without causing harm- but it appears that you *can* kill your child while following the will of GOD.

So really, in terms of your question about weather or not pagans could kill children and it would be wicca-cool-

WHAT IS *YOUR* FUCKING POINT?


Just because you are better at arguing others in circles and you TEACH logic, therefor your arguments are all beautiful and logical and rational and acedemic- DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT.

And well, if this is harsh- so is calling a newbe a moron because they don't know the ins and outs of your fucking holy sacred discipline of LOGIC.

 

[woodnymph_O]

oh the fun of life

havin a ball here,
sometimes the lengths that people will go to in defense of religion and politics is a comedy. Oddly enough I dont get angry in the slightest, lol. Joe its been good debating with you, i'm sorry you tske the subject so personnaly, but in a way i do to having been raised in the christian mentality. Sadly I wasted many years inside a church memorizing the deeds of Abraham Issac Noah etc etc etc, when I could have been taught love, acceptance, understanding, and the right to be an individual without being haunted by the pits of hell. I leave you to your faith Joe, if it is what makes your soul soar, and a smile touch your eyes.That is after all the point of our faith, to be more than the individual and soar higher knowing we have support, be it in this realm, or the next.
thanks amy for a warm welcome, and for making the point that newness on a forum is not always newness to life. No, in fact i was not born yesterday.
I hope you all are having as wonderful a day as I am, I'm now going to paint my hallway and do a bit of writing.Thats why i came to the site, to write, but the occasional discussion is cool too .
Take time to love
Nymph (not wood) lol

 

[TheEarl]

PEOPLE! Calm the fuck down!

Joe is righti n the sense that logic and good debating skills are very important when arguing your point. He is wrong in that he takes these things far too far and picks apart minutae. However, newbie or not, if woodnymph wanted to punch at his weight, then you've gotta accept she might be outdone. I yelled at him for being nasty to the newbie. He's gone through and deconstructed her arguments after that. Admittedly he's been overly aggressive, but he's been proving his points.

Amy is right in the sense that Joe has been over-aggressive and a bit of a wanker to the newbie. But you're not helping it by being overaggressive back. Anger breeds anger and the more vitriolic you two get, the closer this debate gets to a slanging match.

Play nicely! Debate your points to their ends and argue as much as you like, but let's try to be professional about it.

The Earl

 

[Sunnie]

Seems to me that Joe is spending all his time in this thread showing off his brain and arguing about subjectivity vs. objectivity. From all the points made and everything said here, Joe, you have chosen three lonely words to argue about for four pages. Seems a bit futile, doesn't it?

Here's the thing -- No one cares about your degrees, your ability to rationalize and analyze and [can I just throw this in] prosthelytize. No one cares about your books and your classes and your IQs or PhDs or whatever other acronyms you can dig up to make yourself look important. It doesn't matter. No one cares but you.

Listening to this thread is like listening to the Presidential debates this year. Everyone's saying the same things over and over, and none of it makes any sense. Can anyone even remember why this whole argument was started in the first place?

And does it ultimately have a point? Is anyone's world view or life philosophy going to be changed for the better by all of this?

I guess what I'm elaborately trying to say is FUCKING DROP IT ALREADY!

 

[English Lady]

I think that most debates end up like this, going round and round in circles because people feel deeply about the subject matter in hand.

woodnymph -I am so sorry you had such a bad time in church. I saw something totally alien to me in what you said there but then "love, acceptance, understanding, and the right to be an individual " was what I found in my church.

religion, faith, belief is something that is close to peoples hearts. Remember when you're debating that you may be making comments about things as precious to an individual as a newborn baby.

Things will get heated. The difficult bit is working out when to leave something be

 

[Amy Sweet]

Well, anyway I didn't start this thread to argue weather paganism was or wasn't a religion- but rather to talk (and maybe argue0 about other stuff pertaining to paganism.

Like, I remember somebody saying somethign about Pagans and Celtic stuff but i can't remember exactly what it was- i sorta wanted to defend agaisnt that but I was tired at the time and ddin't want to hijack that thread.

OK, so now let's talk *about* pagansim- be it a relgion, a phylosophy or just a state of mind.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

It's all about the earth baby, the elements and appreciating the world we live in....basically.
Just be good, that's all there is to it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'll clarify:

Any effort of understanding must first come with trust that all parties are playing with the same toys and understand how they work. What started as my questioning how an entirely subjective (internally subjective, externally subjective) faith can function in any coherant or sensible way was partly answered by Earl. Before you go off on some wonky tangent about not listening or trying to understand, first note that I did listen and Earl's explanation made sufficient sense as to be understood. Arguments to the point of "You're just being close minded" are entirely erroneous, because of that fact.

Past that... "its all subjective" needed qualifying. Wood chose to do this with an interpretation of Abraham and Isaac that was not a matter of subjectivity at all. If you're going to argue that Christianity is subjective, don't use a parable that is--essentially--an appeal to the strict objectivity of the faith. We can forgive and forget and say "aww, well, she's new and didn't know what she was saying", but how many of you are that accepting when people you may like less make similar factual or rational errors (trick question, we are not a tolerant people concerning, say amicus, when he draws upon a reference that does not support his point).

In discussing the qualification and explaining how it isn't subjective... the conversation was shifted into a "well, Christianity is full of contradictions and there are Christians that suck and some Christians interpret things differently than other Christians... so THAT is subjective" storm of irrelevant points. I recieved six PM's last night from people (some who have posted some who have not) giving me a great big "What the hell is she talking about?" and "Its not worth arguing with people who don't know what they're saying". In the name of harmony, maybe they don't feel like repeating what they shared in confidence. But, I'm not going to feel too bad about being perfectly open about my view that if you're going to argue, you're subject to the science of arguments--namely, Logic.

Past that, there were some attempts to moralize Christianity and aggressive conclusions (without premise or with faulty premise) like "because its religion its all subjective".

I'll make this really clear, because if we're going to talk about people learning from each other and growing and understanding and all that... you might want to try it out a bit yourself:

Subjective and Objective are not fun terms to throw out to cover your belief-base. They a referential and mean something. A lot of gaps in understanding come from failure to appreciate the foundational concepts. If we're to talk about religion, intelligently, we should use at least some of the necessary vocabulary used in the philosophy of it so this is a much more productive process... Subjective--the world is entirely a matter of personal concern, preference, and limitation. A subjective world is one where everyone's beliefs are true, where reality is under the auspice of the subject. Objectivity--the world exists in its way despite what one may personally prefer. An objective world is one where there is a True, there is a Reality, and these things aren't changed or affected by anyone's not wanting to believe it.

Christianity (all forms that I'm aware of, and I know more than a few) is the hallmark of an objective worldview. It, in all of its forms, beileves in a static world that has necessary and existing components that no amount of belief or lack of belief can change. God exists. The world exists. Morality exists. Spiritual things exist. Your preference does not matter.

Some (and not all) Buddhism, as an example, preach a subjective world. The world, spiritual concerns and reality, morality are all a product of your own invention. The goal is to take control over the subconscious desires and wants and invent oneself a better world. There is no objective referrent.

Not all religions are subjective. To claim that is plainly wrong. Claiming that is misleading people, its preaching falsehoods as truths. Absolutely nothing I've said yet is a value judgement on religion. At no point have I mentioned anything as better than another, only that no, not all religion is subjective, not all beliefs are either. It is essential to understand this.

From there, Amy and Sunnie, I clarified and editorialized a few points, but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about my education and qualifications far, far more than I have even brought them up. Not to be too rude about it, but if you feel the need to keep bringing it up and then complaining about it, that's your problem. I promise, if you take my points on their face and entertain their position, you'll find I'm not incorrect.

So, ultimately, I stand by my point. If it was introduced harshly (which I already addressed way back at the beginning), it was not continued that way until exaspiration over the clinginess people have to buzzwords that they don't seem to either understand or choose to explain took over.

I realize it may be common and fun to just lump me into an argumentative category, because that's far, far easier than actually giving merit to what I say. Easier to say "Oh, its just too much logic" defiantly than actually address the points I've made. But I have to say, while I'm encouraged and appreciate the private messages I get that remind me that I'm making sense to some and that I'm not the only one that sees the errors... I'm, in some way, disappointed that I'm left being the only one willing to do that out in the open.

...because we don't want to upset the easily upsetted people.

 

[yui]

...because we don't want to upset the easily upsetted people.

Couldn't resist, could you?

I think Sweets started the thread after I suggested that pagan (little "p") by definition isn't the necessarily the same as Wiccan or Pagan/Paganism (big "P"). You posted a definition, too, on the same thread, and I think the first post of this thread suggests it was started as a response to the narrowness of those definitions.

You are a bit argumentative, Joe, but so is Sweets. You guys are often at odds, but seems like neither of you are ever quite on the same page, the same subject. Looking at what you two have written is like trying to manually focus a broken 35mm camera…I can see you both standing there, but the top and the bottom never quite line up.

I'm not criticizing either of you, it's just that the mix of logical conviction and passionate conviction--the different ways you see the world-- is kind of entertaining to watch. Is it wrong to say that? You two have kind of a Captain Kirk/Mr. Spock thing going on.

Please don't hurt me.

Luck,

Yui

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'll clarify:

Any effort of understanding must first come with trust that all parties are playing with the same toys and understand how they work. What started as my questioning how an entirely subjective (internally subjective, externally subjective) faith can function in any coherant or sensible way was partly answered by Earl. Before you go off on some wonky tangent about not listening or trying to understand, first note that I did listen and Earl's explanation made sufficient sense as to be understood. Arguments to the point of "You're just being close minded" are entirely erroneous, because of that fact.

Past that... "its all subjective" needed qualifying. Wood chose to do this with an interpretation of Abraham and Isaac that was not a matter of subjectivity at all. If you're going to argue that Christianity is subjective, don't use a parable that is--essentially--an appeal to the strict objectivity of the faith. We can forgive and forget and say "aww, well, she's new and didn't know what she was saying", but how many of you are that accepting when people you may like less make similar factual or rational errors (trick question, we are not a tolerant people concerning, say amicus, when he draws upon a reference that does not support his point).

In discussing the qualification and explaining how it isn't subjective... the conversation was shifted into a "well, Christianity is full of contradictions and there are Christians that suck and some Christians interpret things differently than other Christians... so THAT is subjective" storm of irrelevant points. I recieved six PM's last night from people (some who have posted some who have not) giving me a great big "What the hell is she talking about?" and "Its not worth arguing with people who don't know what they're saying". In the name of harmony, maybe they don't feel like repeating what they shared in confidence. But, I'm not going to feel too bad about being perfectly open about my view that if you're going to argue, you're subject to the science of arguments--namely, Logic.

Past that, there were some attempts to moralize Christianity and aggressive conclusions (without premise or with faulty premise) like "because its religion its all subjective".

I'll make this really clear, because if we're going to talk about people learning from each other and growing and understanding and all that... you might want to try it out a bit yourself:

Subjective and Objective are not fun terms to throw out to cover your belief-base. They a referential and mean something. A lot of gaps in understanding come from failure to appreciate the foundational concepts. If we're to talk about religion, intelligently, we should use at least some of the necessary vocabulary used in the philosophy of it so this is a much more productive process... Subjective--the world is entirely a matter of personal concern, preference, and limitation. A subjective world is one where everyone's beliefs are true, where reality is under the auspice of the subject. Objectivity--the world exists in its way despite what one may personally prefer. An objective world is one where there is a True, there is a Reality, and these things aren't changed or affected by anyone's not wanting to believe it.

Christianity (all forms that I'm aware of, and I know more than a few) is the hallmark of an objective worldview. It, in all of its forms, beileves in a static world that has necessary and existing components that no amount of belief or lack of belief can change. God exists. The world exists. Morality exists. Spiritual things exist. Your preference does not matter.

Some (and not all) Buddhism, as an example, preach a subjective world. The world, spiritual concerns and reality, morality are all a product of your own invention. The goal is to take control over the subconscious desires and wants and invent oneself a better world. There is no objective referrent.

Not all religions are subjective. To claim that is plainly wrong. Claiming that is misleading people, its preaching falsehoods as truths. Absolutely nothing I've said yet is a value judgement on religion. At no point have I mentioned anything as better than another, only that no, not all religion is subjective, not all beliefs are either. It is essential to understand this.

From there, Amy and Sunnie, I clarified and editorialized a few points, but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about my education and qualifications far, far more than I have even brought them up. Not to be too rude about it, but if you feel the need to keep bringing it up and then complaining about it, that's your problem. I promise, if you take my points on their face and entertain their position, you'll find I'm not incorrect.

So, ultimately, I stand by my point. If it was introduced harshly (which I already addressed way back at the beginning), it was not continued that way until exaspiration over the clinginess people have to buzzwords that they don't seem to either understand or choose to explain took over.

I realize it may be common and fun to just lump me into an argumentative category, because that's far, far easier than actually giving merit to what I say. Easier to say "Oh, its just too much logic" defiantly than actually address the points I've made. But I have to say, while I'm encouraged and appreciate the private messages I get that remind me that I'm making sense to some and that I'm not the only one that sees the errors... I'm, in some way, disappointed that I'm left being the only one willing to do that out in the open.

...because we don't want to upset the easily upsetted people.

So where do we get to the idea that Christianity is objective and Paganism is subjective, when I have brought up time and again how there are sects of Paganism that are just as objective about the origins and that there are sects of Christianity that feature more relaxed and Eastern subjective religious philosophies?

Not all pieces of Christianity are objective, not all are subjective, and as a group it may even be subjective because the rock-hard tenets of one group may not translate into another. The same occurs in Paganism and in Wicca and in most religions. It also occurs in lacks of religions, secular worldviews. The idea of objective or subjective in truth can't really be used to prove a religion's religiosity nor be used as you did to infer that Christianity is somehow stronger than the other religions. Regardless of the biases that drive you and wood from each other and shape your opinions of the other's worldviews, the path you have chosen to argue is irresponsible, yet shows the usual Joeian "win at all costs, fuck the argument" style we've grown accustomed to.



So, for the scorekeepers on the sidebench, allow me to cut through the shit for a moment and relay the score that matters. Paganism is a diverse pan-religious term for a number of fringe religions based on polytheistic deities and have radically varying religious traditions. Wicca is an overarching ritual practice that has been adopted into some forms of pagan religion, turned into its own religious practice by others, and attached to old druidic and monotheistic religions. It also has a wide blanket of terms and definitions and suffers on the marketplace of ideas because people are inclined to believe the simplest explanation about the practice instead of looking at all the facets and forms of it. This is also not a practice limited to paganism and Wicca. Christianity (that majority objective bastion etc...) has many people who despise it because of the actions of certain sects (most notably the Catholics and Southern Baptists). This is even with a central text, monotheistic deity, and so-called "objective" emplacements. So, regardless of Joe's internal debate, the score remains unchanged on subjective opinions of the religions involved, which I believe was the central influence for the thread's creation.


Now then, on to celebrating the Triakas of Maimakterion tommorrow, a celebration which will most likely result in an orgy on this forum, despite it being a traditionally somber occasion.

 

[TheEarl]

Couldn't resist, could you?

I think Sweets started the thread after I suggested that pagan (little "p") by definition isn't the necessarily the same as Wiccan or Pagan/Paganism (big "P"). You posted a definition, too, on the same thread, and I think the first post of this thread suggests it was started as a response to the narrowness of those definitions.

You are a bit argumentative, Joe, but so is Sweets. You guys are often at odds, but seems like neither of you are ever quite on the same page, the same subject. Looking at what you two have written is like trying to manually focus a broken 35mm camera…I can see you both standing there, but the top and the bottom never quite line up.

I'm not criticizing either of you, it's just that the mix of logical conviction and passionate conviction--the different ways you see the world-- is kind of entertaining to watch. Is it wrong to say that? You two have kind of a Captain Kirk/Mr. Spock thing going on.

Please don't hurt me.

Luck,

Yui

Bwahahahaha. I don't think I've seen so apposite a post in a long, long time. Well done yui.

The Earl

 

[Sunnie]

Oh my Goddess, Joe, SERIOUSLY, no one cares. Stop it now please!

 

[Sunnie]

From there, Amy and Sunnie, I clarified and editorialized a few points, but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about my education and qualifications far, far more than I have even brought them up. Not to be too rude about it, but if you feel the need to keep bringing it up and then complaining about it, that's your problem. I promise, if you take my points on their face and entertain their position, you'll find I'm not incorrect.

A chip? No, dear. I merely pointed out that no one cares. Repeatedly.

Now be quiet.

 

[cantdog]

our own Lucifer Carroll:
Now then, on to celebrating the Triakas of Maimakterion tommorrow, a celebration which will most likely result in an orgy on this forum, despite it being a traditionally somber occasion.

Actually, we here at my home are celebrating tomorrow, but not the Triakas. Qu'est-ce que c'est Triakas, anyway? Our celebration is for no reason whatever except that we are taking joy in sitting among friends and eating good food.

It might be nice to know that we picked a genuine holiday, if we can have some sort of idea what it is.

cantdog

 

[yui]

Actually, we here at my home are celebrating tomorrow, but not the Triakas. Qu'est-ce que c'est Triakas, anyway? Our celebration is for no reason whatever except that we are taking joy in sitting among friends and eating good food.

It might be nice to know that we picked a genuine holiday, if we can have some sort of idea what it is.

cantdog

I think it has something to do with the Hellenic Calender, maybe? Maimakterion is November-December, I think, but no clue what Triakas is.

 

[rgraham666]

Everything we humans look at, perceive, can't not be subjective.

We can only see the world through our senses and the soul within us.

Some things we may agree on. If a person jumps off a twenty story building they will make an awful SPLAT! when they hit the ground. Much of the rest is open to personal interpretation.

And as always, I think arguing about the niggling little points of our various beliefs is a delaying tactic. It keeps us from discussing the important thing.

How we should live our lives.

 

[EmeraldKitten]

I kinda sorta started to read this thread the other day.
I got lost pretty damn quick.

It must be all the big words and artfully crafted sentences.

Please talk down to me, and take pity.
I'm just a little bitty hairdresser from Ohio.


Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take my Athame and dance nakkie around a fire.



P.S. Not trying to make light of the subject.
Just expressing that I don't get into "debate" threads because I simply don't fucking understand, LOL.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Sunnie
Oh my Goddess, Joe, SERIOUSLY, no one cares. Stop it now please!

If nobody cared, nobody would respond. I think the intention there is more like "Oh my Goddess, Joe, SERIOUSLY, I hope no one cares."

A chip? No, dear. I merely pointed out that no one cares. Repeatedly.

Now be quiet.

Which is really weird, because if nobody (including the two of you) cared, then ya'll would have already shut up about it, no?

Again... it is apparent that its easier to diss than actually deal with the points. That's a sad thing. How we can expect a progress of understanding when we refuse to acknowledge the merit of those who simply don't agree, reasonably, is beyond me.

Feel free not to respond, if you don't care, Sun.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
So where do we get to the idea that Christianity is objective and Paganism is subjective, when I have brought up time and again how there are sects of Paganism that are just as objective about the origins

I admitted as much when Earl made his point. And I never said that Paganism was subjective--I was making point that there are some serious inconsistencies if it is. That everything (Paganism included) is subjective was someone else's point. I was arguing with that person.

and that there are sects of Christianity that feature more relaxed and Eastern subjective religious philosophies?

Assuming you mean "there are Christian denominations that have Eastern influence", I'm sure there probably are--Christianity is big in Asia. Assuming you mean "these Christianities are subjective, or are based formally on something subjective", I know of absolutely none. I'd be delighted to know what they are.