Paganism

[Sunnie]

You said:

I should think its everyone's job to take seriously the pursuit of knowing what is right and what is not right (even as a matter of simple correctness). One person may see things one way, and another person may see things another way, but to say "well, you can't say whether anyone is more right than anyone else" is to abandon an appreciate for science, Law, philosophy, humanitarian efforts, pacifism, political accountability, simple education, etc.

No, I think when you find something that's right... you should do what you can to let others know. Especially in light of the possibility that others will take "what's wrong" and believe it otherwise, beginning a chain of poor reasoning and potentially harmful beliefs.



So, you complain about other peoples' arguments when you're bored?

My point had no inference. It was as literal as I could make it, because of people like you. IF there is a subjectivity of value ("harm" having a value, but that value determined individually with no referrent to an objective norm), then killing children could be perfectly ethically suitable. That's true by simple logic. As such, I didn't think it advantagious or "good" that Paganism be "subjective". Earl did a good job of explaining how it isn't subjective, in his own way (though I have a ton more questions).

Subjectivity leads to the possibility of killing children being ethical. Its one of subjectivity's greater failings--an inability to hold a standard, objectively, because it can't by definition.



If I'd have ignored it, someone could have read it and thought "Oh, well that's true". Can't have that. At the very least a democratic response to a questionable point is a good thing, for everyone's benefit. For those disinclined to even consider a dissenting view, they won't much care. For those who go "ah, so that's not necessarily true", it was a good thing to have provided them.

You still seem hung up on PhD stuff. I don't have one, by the way. Get over it.

I'm focused on finding what is right, "being right" doesn't really interest me in a relavent fashion to this discussion. I'm keeping up this argument because there are parts you seem to still either (1) not understand or (2) choose to ignore so you don't have to confront the possibility of being wrong. As such, I have faith that it isn't willing ignorance (the latter), but a lack of my ability to clearly state my point (the former).

I've already been told I'm right. But, like I've said, "being right" doesn't really interest me in this discussion in any relavent fashion.



I'm not the one who considers this a waste of time or pointless. I have no reason to stop.



If Paganism is inexplicable, then why should anyone take it even reasonably seriously? Why should it have status, socially, as a viable and perfectly acceptable form of religious observance if nobody can explain it reasonably well? How is it, in such a case, any different than a psychosis--in that the mechanics are inexplicable, but its surely a belief structure of some kind?

I think if nobody can explain Paganism without doing it half-assed (a necessary condition to someone doing so to begin with), then Earl may well be wrong... his explanation being a half-assed one. If his attempt to explain the inexplicable was half-assed, am I to still take it seriously (I did, but that was before I learned that in his doing so if was a half-assed thing, warranting very little credit, by nature).

I heard:

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

Thanks though.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Sunnie
You said:




I heard:



Thanks though.

How much simpler, or how differently, must it be put for you to understand then? I don't know that I can make things yet more literal. But, perhaps you can tell me what you're capable of understanding and you're not I can revise what I've said to be more... clear?

 

[TheEarl]

Who are you to decide what is and is not right? One person may view things one way, another person another way. Doesn't make it "right" or "wrong" either way.

To be honest, this is the nub of debate. No-one's ever going to admit that they're wrong. It is the debate itself that matters and the arguing of your point, which you yourself (presumably) believe to be right. The aim is not to come up with a definitive right and a definite wrong (at the risk of being labelled as a stirrer, in debate, these things are subjective(!)), but to learn from the other's opinion and learning more about the other side. That way you become a truly rounded and knowledgeable person.

Like what I am.

The Earl

 

[woodnymph_O]

I was enjoying the holiday discussion (sigh)

I have been enjoying my beautiful tree, twinkling with blue lights and covered with blue tinsel. I wonder why some find blue to be a sad color. Wouldn't rust brown be a little more sad? lol I love the christmas holiday decorations, especially angels, most of which I craft myself. Beautiful satin robes, and inticate feather wings. I made a few for my BF's mother. He recently cut his hair short so I surprised her with a couple that had his hair. She loved them. I think I'm going to do a few fresh wreaths in the next few days too. I've just been to busy to get to them lately.
love and light
Nymph

 

[Amy Sweet]

I'm focused on finding what is right, "being right" doesn't really interest me in a relavent fashion to this discussion. I'm keeping up this argument because there are parts you seem to still either (1) not understand or (2) choose to ignore so you don't have to confront the possibility of being wrong. As such, I have faith that it isn't willing ignorance (the latter), but a lack of my ability to clearly state my point (the former).

[/B]

Joe, youore the one who is not understanding. It's not that we don't understand your point and it's not that we are choosing to ignore it. We understand, we disagree and we don't like your communication style. Maybe you don't think you've overstressed your education- but the rest of us do. It doesn't come from saying "I have a degree" over and over. It comes from your entire tone. You tell us all over and over again that we are wrong, that we don't properly appreciate logic and that if we did, we would see how wrong we are- because you could expain it all logically to us and we would know that what you are saying is right because it's logical and you can prove it with your big words. Now I realize that you probably don't realise that you are using big words, but you are- and quite a bit of specialized language to your field. And that comes accross as waving your PHd around. Now I know, you don't *have* a PHD and if you focus on that point, you are missing the point of the sentance.

Joe, we are not logic majors. We will never be logic majors. We don't even want to be logic majors. We could give a rats ass about logic beyond being able to make a coherient sentance and saying things that make sence to the rest of the non-logic majoring world. We don't want to be preached to about the importance of Logic or how we all need it and should use it more or better. Frankly, it's getting on our fucking nerves.

We don't need or want you to educate us or tell us why we should want to be educated in your beloved specialty. I realize that you are a teacher- but when we want to be lectured to, we will go and pay tution at our community college and take the lovely classes you have suggested- or one that we are interested in.

I know that *YOU* think that we are the poorer for it- but we all get along just fine *without* having a PHd in Logic. For example, we know when to take a statement like the above literally, and when not too.

I'll help you out there.

Don't.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
Joe, youore the one who is not understanding. It's not that we don't understand your point and it's not that we are choosing to ignore it. We understand, we disagree and we don't like your communication style. Maybe you don't think you've overstressed your education- but the rest of us do. It doesn't come from saying "I have a degree" over and over. It comes from your entire tone. You tell us all over and over again that we are wrong, that we don't properly appreciate logic and that if we did, we would see how wrong we are- because you could expain it all logically to us and we would know that what you are saying is right because it's logical and you can prove it with your big words. Now I realize that you probably don't realise that you are using big words, but you are- and quite a bit of specialized language to your field. And that comes accross as waving your PHd around. Now I know, you don't *have* a PHD and if you focus on that point, you are missing the point of the sentance.

My "manner" is constant. It doesn't really change and is the same whether in affirmation or dissention. It is remarkable, and very telling, how its only a problem when the opinion expressed isn't yours (not, literally "yours" specifically, of course). I have, curiously, not been lambastad for expressing opinion... assuming that opinion is popular and agreeable.

I don't think, as long as people are polite, anyone ought concern themselves with censure in places like this just because the opinion might not be liked.

Joe, we are not logic majors. We will never be logic majors. We don't even want to be logic majors. We could give a rats ass about logic beyond being able to make a coherient sentance and saying things that make sence to the rest of the non-logic majoring world. We don't want to be preached to about the importance of Logic or how we all need it and should use it more or better. Frankly, it's getting on our fucking nerves.

"We don't care about logic" is not a defense against an opinion that one is arguing in affirmation for. Its like stepping into a public arena, proposing something as true, and then throwing up your hands and saying "now, don't disagree with me using basic reasoning skills". Anyone who is to propose something is subject to disagreement. Reason (or logic, or whatever you'd like to call it) is the vehicle that deals with intelligent disagreement. This is not like some kind of strange alien tool that everyone gets along without just fine... wood's first justification of the story of Abraham was "here are my reasons" and then "see how my conclusion is true".

Logic is being used, here, and everywhere people disagree about or construct ideas. NOT using it isn't really an option. Using it badly is how we get things like "go to war with Iraq", "Abortion is just wrong because its wrong", and "lets hang all the black people".

I feel it irresponsible, and most everyone here probably does to whether they're going to admit it or not, to let poor reasoning breed potentially harmful conclusions. Is the nature of subjectivity going to cause racism? Probably not. Is minsconstruing the nature of parts of the Bible going to offend some people? Possibly. Is the promotion of "arguments don't have to be subject to Reason" a good thing? In no responsible world can I agree with that.

We don't need or want you to educate us or tell us why we should want to be educated in your beloved specialty. I realize that you are a teacher- but when we want to be lectured to, we will go and pay tution at our community college and take the lovely classes you have suggested- or one that we are interested in.

While issues with my tone in one or two places have come up, I've already had people tell me they appreciate me not allowing things like this to go un-commented on. You may feel its a lecture. Obviously, others don't.

Whom should I listen to?

I know that *YOU* think that we are the poorer for it- but we all get along just fine *without* having a PHd in Logic. For example, we know when to take a statement like the above literally, and when not too.

I think everyone is poorer for not understanding Reason sufficiently. I think we'd have less racism, hate, phobia, bad judgement, wars, misguided voting, and much more understanding if more people practiced a little conversational restraint and thought more about what they were saying and how the ideas inter-relate. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

I'll help you out there.

Don't.

I am, admittedly, torn. Do I believe you, and just entirely stop offering up reasoned dissention when I read something I don't agree with... or do I believe others, and continue?

What would you advise? And, if your opinion is better than theirs, why?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Why Joe gets treated like shit: A unified theory

When an illogician acts like a logician, believes himself to be right at all times, uses circular arguments, reversions to defeated arguments, and blatant misdirections in order to skew a debate in his favor, anyone with half an ounce of "give a damn" brand cough syrup will be more than slightly ticked off at the offender.

Especially when the end of a five page debate about a tiny fragment of an argument he can't defeat is shown to have looped back to what someone said in the beginning, but he couldn't admit without showing off and being lauded as a wise man.


I know it sounds like I'm disrespecting you, and yes in a way I am, but it's the damned truth. I'd say a good 12 out of 15 of your last arguments have gone exactly as I depicted above, and frankly a lot of people who aren't me are getting tired of it. That's the non-me originated backlash you are experiencing now. It is not an isolated incident, it's people (not always eloquent or logic-based) getting tired of someone trying to prop himself up without substance on the merit of one's ability to abuse logic and language to one's own ends.

Perhaps, you are incapable of change and this post will serve as another example of why all my posts should be ignored by you. Fine. It's no weight off my shoulders and I'll continue to giggle on the sidelines. But if you are earnestly worried about how so many are starting to treat you, then you might want to try an immediate deep introspection. You know, what philosophy really is all about.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

NOW IF IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO RETURN TO TOPIC

Okay, I don't know if all the existing pagans have been scared away by the usual Joe bullshit, but if you haven't, I'd really be interested in what they feel about spirit animals, reincarnation, and prophetic dreams. I have now had three friends come up to me with tales of such and I'm wondering if anyone has any beliefs along these lines, words of explanation, books they can direct me to in order to give me a way to understand their experiences and viewpoints better and be able to converse about it without nodding my head in an emptily empathetic fashion.

 

[woodnymph_O]

dreams, reincarnation,etc

well here is an unofficial opinion,
On dreams, since i was 9 nears old I have had dreams that come true,down to the letter. It usually happens when a dream reoccurs for 3 nights or more, so in my heart i know it happens. In my experience it is mostly mundane things it happens with, but every once and awhile it is a little more important.

I studied reincarnation by the time i was 11, and do believe in that one as well, due to regression and memories of events I would have no way to know about at 11, but did. Don't trust just anyone to regress you though. In my experience, if they say you were cleopatra in a former life they are probably fakes. We are not all reborn royalty.

Resources : you have the internet, so they are a search away hon,, I would say try this
http://www.crystalinks.com
ellie provides links on alot of different subjects start off slowly with the e-zine or go to the index for some more specialized subjects. Good luck
light and love
nymph

 

[woodnymph_O]

a link to an intersting subject

http://www.crystalinks.com/edgar_cayce.html
he was a well known prohetic dreamer
he is one of the few well documented ones
hope it interests you
nymph

 

[cantdog]

spirit animals, shapeshifting

Shamanistic practice seemed to me to be closest to my own experience of mysticism, Luc. You evidently don't start having spontaneous mystical states until you've hit a particular level. But the sufis showed that anyone could do so with guidance. Mine was spontaneous and waited for my early 40s. I've explained it in more detail, I think in the "Philosophy" thread or the one called "Philosophical rambles," if you remember them. It involved a clump of mosses and grasses; long story.

The book about circumpolar shamanistic practices that gave me the bingo: Fire in the Head by Tom Cowan. Subtitle: shamanism and the Celtic spirit. It's not a fascinating read, but the subject is obscure and this is the author I used because I found him. He quotes from the direct participants as he can and draws conclusions.

Further researches into the shamans of Yakut people and North American natives revealed that the Celtic tradition has a lot in common with a complex of similar ideas stretching around the world near the northern extremities of the continents. Other books therefore helped to confirm my ideas.

I think my own experience was a shapeshifting one. A young man, with guidance, looking for a spirit animal, might well have been very similar.

cantdog

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Re: spirit animals, shapeshifting

Shamanistic practice seemed to me to be closest to my own experience of mysticism, Luc. You evidently don't start having spontaneous mystical states until you've hit a particular level. But the sufis showed that anyone could do so with guidance. Mine was spontaneous and waited for my early 30s. I've explained it in more detail, I think in the "Philosophy" thread or the one called "Philosophical rambles," if you remember them. It involved a clump of mosses and grasses; long story.

The book about circumpolar shamanistic practices that gave me the bingo: Fire in the Head by Tom Cowan. Subtitle: shamanism and the Celtic spirit. It's not a fascinating read, but the subject is obscure and this is the author I used because I found him. He quotes from the direct participants as he can and draws conclusions.

Further researches into the shamans of Yakut people and North American natives revealed that the Celtic tradition has a lot in common with a complex of similar ideas stretching around the world near the northern extremities of the continents. Other books therefore helped to confirm my ideas.

I think my own experience was a shapeshifting one. A young man, with guidance, looking for a spirit animal, might well have been very similar.

cantdog

I think that was one of my threads, but I can't find it...LOL.

Someone here turned me on to finding my animal guide, very enlightening experience I might add.

 

[cantdog]

It was one of yours, Abs

Philosophical rambles

That's part of it. Other parts of it are on other threads but I can't find them, either. It doesn't matter, really.

My problem with it at the time was what the hell to make of it. Was it some sort of schizophrenic episode? What had happened? I had three, all told, over the next year or so. Tree, mosses: two of them were of that "shapeshifting" character. It was reading Merton and Hodgson and Cowan that made me understand them in terms of a mystical experience.

cantdog

 

[English Lady]

I've looked, pressed reply; changed my mind and done it again but yes I'm going to say my piece.

Joe is an opinionated type of person, he feels strongly about alot of things so he argues his points and he keeps going until he feels it's resolved. Fair enough I know alot of people like that and I do admit it can be annoying but you know what?

If you don't want to don't. Just say "Yes, I see what you're saying" and move on to something else. Simple as.

It drives me batty how we're forever saying "be who you are" and "everyone's free to do/say/type" what they like then 5 minutes later we're saying "but don't do that, don't be like this, don't type that."

Right. Point made.

I will leave you to it now

 

[cantdog]

Take the time to read Joe. He puts real work into it, sometimes. This thread was started with an educational aim, and I think some of the vague bits could use elucidation, myself.

Resolution of an argument almost never occurs in your sight, I find. Rare is the person who, hearing an argument, having a discussion, will say, "You know, that's something I never thought of like that. You're right." Not right there in front of you. Even when you've changed a mind, nearly everyone will carry on as though you didn't. The next time they come to the subject, they may have a new perspective; your arguments may have found good soil; but to recant right then? To declare immediately that they are convinced? Very rare person, one who can do it.

Many of our discussions seem repetitive or seem to be circling the same turf, consequently, even when there has actually been a resolution undeclared.

cantdog

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

As always, if I'm in error (and haven't, myself, acknowledged as mcuh)... I'd be delighted to see where. There are a number of questions I've asked that haven't been answered, I'd be delighted to have those answered to.

And, still, Amy seems to believe that her opinion is superior to others in that her recommendation that I just stop being argumentative altogether (that would be a polite rephrasing). However, I still don't know for sure whether that's the best idea. Surely, the opinions of others have been varied. My concern isn't for how people think of me, Luc would be wrong about that, but how best to resolve the desires of those here.

Past that, philosophy was never about introspection. That's sort of like saying psychology is the study of crazy people... just not the case.

 

[Sunnie]

As always, if I'm in error (and haven't, myself, acknowledged as mcuh)... I'd be delighted to see where. There are a number of questions I've asked that haven't been answered, I'd be delighted to have those answered to.

Of course you would. Because then you could talk about how those answers are wrong, too.


Do you see how this is getting nowhere?

 

[Pure]

It's kind of a shame that the original point of this thread got lost in entanglements in Joe's philosophical engine, recriminations, etc.

I believe was that neo pagans are a varied lot, not agreeing on a creed or dogma. This sounds a lot like Unitarians. Such approaches contrast to orthodox Christianity, which in most churches involves affirming the Nicene creed. Further, in the Catholic church, there are many pronouncement on the 'correct view' for the followers.

It's too bad that the non-creed/ creed issue and the individual approach/versus lockstep with the authorities got make into Joes favorite topic of subjectivism and objectivism.

I think it's hard for Christian-ish people like Joe to comprehend religions with a quite different structure-- with lots of laisser faire in the area of theology. It's all so disorganized , and that cant be good, since Truth and Logic dictate consistency. So THE model of religious thought is St. Thomas Aquinas or John Calvin.

Pagans and now neo pagans (i'm neither, but sympathetic) always get a bad rap. Like "nature worship." If not idolatry, most Christians would say, it's confusion (as Joe would say).
Further, it's incomprehensible that you could have two pagans conversing, and one saying, "I revere the triple goddesses of the Moon" and another saying, "For me, the Great Mother, source of all is the only Goddess."

After all, 'logic' says, 'either the moon is/has a triple goddess or it doesn't. let's sort this out.' T

The logician pictures settling the matter. "OK, there's the Great Mother goddess, only. Let that be our axiom" Then the logically organized pagan church will have a dogma saying, "All members shall accept the Great Mother as a goddess, in fact the only goddess. Those who do not shall be considered incorrectly believing members , and if they cant be convinced, have to be terminated in membership, driven out, or otherwise dealt with."

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Sunnie
Of course you would. Because then you could talk about how those answers are wrong, too.

Or, I could see the error and acknowledge it. Like Earl's point. It happens, happens often.

Do you see how this is getting nowhere?

Given the possible spread of outcomes, I don't. "Somewhere" isn't "nowhere" and "somewhere" happens.

Originally posted by Pure
It's kind of a shame that the original point of this thread got lost in entanglements in Joe's philosophical engine, recriminations, etc.

Asking the "how" was, apparently, mistaken for "not liking it" or whatever and brought nobody closer to a bridged gap of understanding. Past that, I think its fair to say that the philosophical engine will always be brought up in response to philosophical points or questions.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Hi everybody, I got to this thread late. I am afraid to start at the beginning and get lost in the other stuff. I don't know anything at all about pagans. If its not OFF TOPIC would somebody please put a brief reply. I know you can't explain hardly anything briefly but first, I think its similar to a religion or spiritual belief and thats all I know.
If you could just put down a couple things about it, or if my first and only assumption is correct, I would appreciate it.

 

[TheEarl]

Hi everybody, I got to this thread late. I am afraid to start at the beginning and get lost in the other stuff. I don't know anything at all about pagans. If its not OFF TOPIC would somebody please put a brief reply. I know you can't explain hardly anything briefly but first, I think its similar to a religion or spiritual belief and thats all I know.
If you could just put down a couple things about it, or if my first and only assumption is correct, I would appreciate it.

Heya Lisa. Paganism basically describes a collection of different faiths. Defining it is kinda like trying to define a ball of mud. I know something about Wicca, which is one of the faiths.

It is a nature-based religion, where the main deity is an Earth-Goddess. It is very about being in-tune with your environment and balancing nature. A lot of Wiccans practise magick, which is a use of supplications and incantations to make things occur, such as healing. Not every Wiccan performs magick and those who do, take different paths. I have onefriend who works wiht herbs and potions and another who works mainly with crystals and incantations.

The major tenet of Wicca is that every action must harm none. It is not a heavily defined religion and there is no real equivalent of the Bible to bind all Wicca together. There are rules, but they differ from one code of Wicca to another. It is a faith with a lot of freedom - a practitioner can join a coven, or practise alone. Wicca worship in the way that they choose.

There is little proselytising in Wicca, which is one of the reasons why I look upon it so fondly. Their attitude is that heaven can be found through many paths, even through other religions. Anybody who is meant to be Wiccan will find their way - "Gaia calls to her own."

Hope that helps.

The Earl

 

[ABSTRUSE]

There is little proselytising in Wicca, which is one of the reasons why I look upon it so fondly. Their attitude is that heaven can be found through many paths, even through other religions. Anybody who is meant to be Wiccan will find their way - "Gaia calls to her own."

Amen brother.

I like the Taoist's too.

 

[cantdog]

Hi everybody, I got to this thread late. I am afraid to start at the beginning and get lost in the other stuff. I don't know anything at all about pagans. If its not OFF TOPIC would somebody please put a brief reply. I know you can't explain hardly anything briefly but first, I think its similar to a religion or spiritual belief and thats all I know.
If you could just put down a couple things about it, or if my first and only assumption is correct, I would appreciate it.

First page is entirely a propos, educational only, except for some initial noise about a previous thread.

Pretty general, but all about mod. Pagans and stuff.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Heya Lisa. Paganism basically describes a collection of different faiths. Defining it is kinda like trying to define a ball of mud. I know something about Wicca, which is one of the faiths.

It is a nature-based religion, where the main deity is an Earth-Goddess. It is very about being in-tune with your environment and balancing nature. A lot of Wiccans practise magick, which is a use of supplications and incantations to make things occur, such as healing. Not every Wiccan performs magick and those who do, take different paths. I have onefriend who works wiht herbs and potions and another who works mainly with crystals and incantations.

The major tenet of Wicca is that every action must harm none. It is not a heavily defined religion and there is no real equivalent of the Bible to bind all Wicca together. There are rules, but they differ from one code of Wicca to another. It is a faith with a lot of freedom - a practitioner can join a coven, or practise alone. Wicca worship in the way that they choose.

There is little proselytising in Wicca, which is one of the reasons why I look upon it so fondly. Their attitude is that heaven can be found through many paths, even through other religions. Anybody who is meant to be Wiccan will find their way - "Gaia calls to her own."

Hope that helps.

The Earl

Thanks Earl, you managedto answer some questions before I asked them.

 

[Lisa Denton]

First page is entirely a propos, educational only, except for some initial noise about a previous thread.

Pretty general, but all about mod. Pagans and stuff.

Thanks Cant, what Earl said made me get a little interested, I will go look at the first page and jump back here if I have questions/comments when I know a little more.