Spiritual Elitism

[Sharpchick]

I so dislike labels. :rolleyes: I've thought for two days now about what to call this thread.

And I keep coming back to the word elitism. I am new to the board, but not to message boards in general and certainly not to my own spirituality.

I keep seeing threads where people are answering questions like, "What kind of pagan are you?" or "What is your path?"

Then I see some innocent victim who responds and says their path is an eclectic one. . . that seems to be all it takes. The word eclectic seems - all on its own - to generate swarms of folks who say that they know what it is, but obviously the person who said s/he was didn't. Then the poster is told not to call his/her path eclectic until they truly understand what it means.

In one such thread, I asked, "Just curious. . .for those who know the definition of eclectic, do you also define pagan for everyone else?" I actually got responses in the affirmative.

I may be really wet behind the ears here, but I would venture to guess that very, very few of us have inherited our specific spiritual practices from our families. I suspect that the majority of folks here are like me - they were raised with one set of beliefs, found them lacking for one or more reasons, and went in search of something that resonated with their soul.

My own personal beliefs coincide in many ways with those of my g-g-g-grandmother, who was a Caddo Indian. I do not say I was born to my path, because the generations in between my grandmother and me were Christian, although from several different denominations. In searching my family history, I am saddened at the largely successful attempt to obliterate my grandmother's spiritual history from our family heritage, so what I have done is to look carefully at the spiritual practices of Caddo Indians, marvel at the parallels in my own practice - things that I just instinctively knew - and incorporate those as I can into my own worship.

And she would not have called herself a pagan. When pressed by someone to label myself, I only do because I find that to be a word that most closely expresses my personal spiritual practice in a way that is understandable to someone else.

I am of the opinion that most of us do the same thing - whether we are drawn to a particular "path" by familial connection or simply because deep inside we know that we know that it is right for us. And the paths we follow with their various labels - even the specific and numerous traditions of Wicca - are generally reconstructions or revivals of what we believe to have been the practice at the time the tradition was common. We are at a loss to know the accurate history of many traditions, because so many of them had oral histories until the time when the people practicing them were annihilated by others invading their homelands.

So we do the best we can. That's why it confounds me to see people who have spent so much time and energy exploring their own inner vision telling others who have done the same that they are wrong. Surely there's room for all of us here.

[Merrilyn]

That's why it confounds me to see people who have spent so much time and energy exploring their own inner vision telling others who have done the same that they are wrong. Surely there's room for all of us here.

Rock on.

[Cassie]

Sharpchic I like your post, especially the last paragraph.

The discussion of eclectic verses non eclectic (particularly Reconstructionist) paths seems to be en vougue here at the moment. It got me thinking about what lies at the heart of any religious or spiritual path. What motivates a person to take an eclectic path rather than a reconstructionist one? Are we looking for different things in our spiritual lives or are our aims and motivations similar enough to make some of this 'us verses them' discussion void?

[Lunacie]

I've been participating in online discussions for seven years and have also seen this attitude of "elitism", have even been accused of it when I have disagreed with somone who was saying that "Wicca is whatever you want it to be."

I think there is a difference between saying "If you change Religion X too much it probably isn't what it started out to be anymore" and saying "This is the only possible standard for Religion X." And much worse when it comes from someone who doesn't even follow that particular religion but seems to feel they can dictate standards for those who do. Gah.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Agreed with , heartily , Sharpchick...

Nice post...one more consideration , though...

Sometimes , some of us do not even get to
choose...sometimes , spiret helpers choose us...

And then , we are handed a " medicine bundle " ,
of information , sometimes ancient ancestral
memory , and " forced " to follow a path , or a
Tradition...

Interesting times , and space we all exist in...

May we find the keys to true wisdom , through
the path of the heart...together...

....._pounce_ .....:ringaroun

[Zephyrstorm]

Well said, Sharpchick.

Its impossible for us to know what precisely is going on for others on a spiritual level. We are not all on the same exact path, even when we happen to tread the same path through the woods side-by-side for a time.

Most "facts" can be tested, challenged, and discussed, interpreted. History, Philosophy, even things such as Science are constantly under revision, changing and shifting as we change in terms of our understanding, our data, and more.

Everyone picks and chooses according to their own perception of which vision of history, which philosophy, which science theory they support - irregardless of religion, politics or more.

Z

[Shawn Blackwolf]

And well said , Zephyrstorm...excellent...:weirdsmil



Well said, Sharpchick.

Its impossible for us to know what precisely is going on for others on a spiritual level. We are not all on the same exact path, even when we happen to tread the same path through the woods side-by-side for a time.

Most "facts" can be tested, challenged, and discussed, interpreted. History, Philosophy, even things such as Science are constantly under revision, changing and shifting as we change in terms of our understanding, our data, and more.

Everyone picks and chooses according to their own perception of which vision of history, which philosophy, which science theory they support - irregardless of religion, politics or more.

Z

[LadyCelt]

Politics, Religion, Jobs, School, etc....

you'll find people saying one way is right and another is wrong. Religion is no different. Personality and life experiences will come into play.

[Zephyrstorm]

Politics, Religion, Jobs, School, etc....

you'll find people saying one way is right and another is wrong. Religion is no different. Personality and life experiences will come into play.

QFT

[HedwigHarfang]

From one "wol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owl_%28Winnie_the_Pooh%29)" to another, Lunacie ;)...I must say for a short-ear you have some good opinions.


I've been participating in online discussions for seven years and have also seen this attitude of "elitism", have even been accused of it when I have disagreed with somone who was saying that "Wicca is whatever you want it to be."

I think there is a difference between saying "If you change Religion X too much it probably isn't what it started out to be anymore" and saying "This is the only possible standard for Religion X." And much worse when it comes from someone who doesn't even follow that particular religion but seems to feel they can dictate standards for those who do. Gah.

Wicca has become an established religion, at least in the United States, and as a member of another established religion (Judaism) there has to be some common ground between worshippers. However if there is a general free-for-all with everyone who rejects mainstream religion and embraces a form of nature-worship, and that directly means you are Wiccan, without reference to the tenets of the religion/cult set up by Gerald Gardner, I think it means that Wicca itself is a long way off resembling any mainstream religion whatsoever.

As someone who is religious, I call myself a Jew, and I adhere to the tenets at least of Reform Judaism (I don't keep kosher, mainly because I couldn't live without bacon sandwiches, and anyway, for a Russian Jew, the idea that pork is taboo is in itself a heresy!). Louise calls herself a Christian and adheres to the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We both have reservations about the way the clergy of both our religions work (my son was criticised by the Jewish rabbinate ten years or so ago because he converted to Christianity, saw Christ as the fulfilment of Judaism and the Jewish prophecies about the Messiah...and wanted to tell people about it) but at the end of the day find more depth in our respective spiritual traditions, and see no need to reject the core faith just because of human failings within the Church.

Thus, if you subscribe to orthodox Wicca, you can call yourself a Wiccan even if you disagree with other Wiccans over material or political issues; but I would imagine someone who just equates Wicca with neo-paganist movements in general and thus describes themselves as Wiccan because they worship nature would be missing the point somewhat. Elitism in the neo-pagan community seems to me just as bad as elitism in Christianity (between the fundamentalists and liberal Anglicans, for example, or between Catholic and Protestant interpretations of the meaning of the Eucharist) or Judaism (mainly nowadays to do with Zionists vs people like me who are European Jews and do not look on Israel as the Promised Land but as another state with a reason to exist but no special meaning for us as religious men and women), but those that call themselves Wiccans should out of courtesy to Gardner at least follow his basic intentions for the cult as a cult in itself.

For what it's worth, I consider myself a pagan Jew, in that I acknowledge that Judaism is about as pagan a religion as you can get, with its emphasis not on worship and celebration of God as God but on folk customs and historical anniversaries such as Channukah (the commemoration of the Maccabean Revolt late in the first century AD), or Purim (the celebration of Esther's rescue of Mordechai from Haman and Ahazverus' political machinations). Louise as a Christian also considers rural Anglicanism as pagan as Christianity can get, and once described herself - in public - as "the nearest thing the Anglicans have to a witch". But neither of us would describe ourselves as Wiccans, because we do not think Gardner's cult is anything approaching a religion and for us is a modern way of reviving the old folk customs of pre-Christian Europe on the one hand, and a way of rebelling against established society on the other.

[Lunacie]

Thank you Mr Owl for your kind words and your well-considered perspective. But I'm going to take issue with one thing . . . your use of the world "cult" to label Wicca.

Call it a "path" or a "tradition" or a "denomination" or a "sect" or a "religion", but please not a "cult."

[HedwigHarfang]

Thank you Mr Owl for your kind words and your well-considered perspective. But I'm going to take issue with one thing . . . your use of the world "cult" to label Wicca.

Call it a "path" or a "tradition" or a "denomination" or a "sect" or a "religion", but please not a "cult."

No problem - thanks for engaging with me on that point and calling me to account! Old Man Snowy-Owl needs a boot up the feathered backside more often if he is going to get back into the mainstream of life rather than sitting here in his pyjamas and dressing gown drinking whisky and talking to pagan wols like yourself.

Sorry to offend - cult was actually meant to be a more neutral way of describing it because Wicca only has about 150,000 adherents, and to me that is not enough to be a religion, but you are quite right, it is probably best to use a less pejorative sounding term given the negative associations of the word. I hope it becomes better established as a religion, myself, because the old customs deserve to be treated with more seriousness, and calling it a cult (to me religions grow out of cults, and Wicca is only fifty-odd years old, so I thought...) seemed to me a reasonable way of describing it. Gardner I suspect would be proud of you for defending his creation :}.

[Lunacie]

No problem - thanks for engaging with me on that point and calling me to account! Old Man Snowy-Owl needs a boot up the feathered backside more often if he is going to get back into the mainstream of life rather than sitting here in his pyjamas and dressing gown drinking whisky and talking to pagan wols like yourself.

Sorry to offend - cult was actually meant to be a more neutral way of describing it because Wicca only has about 150,000 adherents, and to me that is not enough to be a religion, but you are quite right, it is probably best to use a less pejorative sounding term given the negative associations of the word. I hope it becomes better established as a religion, myself, because the old customs deserve to be treated with more seriousness, and calling it a cult (to me religions grow out of cults, and Wicca is only fifty-odd years old, so I thought...) seemed to me a reasonable way of describing it. Gardner I suspect would be proud of you for defending his creation :}.

You can wear whatever you choose when you're sitting at the computer. Don't tell anyone, but there are times I sit here in my nightie, especially when I'm the only one at home on Friday evening. ;)

There is actually quite a bit of debate about how old the religion is, and whether it pre-dates Gardner making it public.

Actually, I suspect there are more than 150.000 followers of the Wiccan path, but many of them simply identify as Pagan when polled, or don't give any label for fear of being targeted by less than tolerant fanatics. ReligiousTolerance.org estimates it may be as high as 400,000.

Number of Wiccan found by ARIS: 134,000 adultsNumber of Pagans found by ARIS:140,000 adultsTotal Wiccans and Pagans:274,000 adultsLess estimated Pagans who are not Wiccans:- 70,000 adultsTotal Wiccans: 204,000 adultsEstimated number of Wiccans who refused to disclose religion204,000 adultsTotal Wiccan adults in the U.S.408,000 adultsTotal Wiccans (adults plus children)750,000 people
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_nbr3.htm

[Twinkle]

I don't know, sharing opinions and views are a good thing. Heated debate and discussion can be equally educational.

I don't really see an "us" vs. "them" mentality in terms or Recons and Eclectics. What I see is a discussion of the use of labels...and that they imply certain things. Calling yourself something you're not doesn't make you "bad" or your path invalid. It just means that what you believe and practice may not be the correct term.

This is what I've seen happen to Wicca. It's what I've seen happen to Eclecticism...and fairly recently I've seen it happen to some Reconstructionist religions.

It's not about elitism or someone dictating what someone should believe...it's about being honest about what you believe. If you believe what you believe, and don't care what people think...then it shouldn't really bother you much if someone tells you that what you practice isn't really Traditional Wicca, or Hellenic Reconstruction.

I see people becoming defensive and angry for no other reason other than someone struck a nerve in saying something. When people are confronted with something they don't want to face they *sometimes* become angry and defensive.

Getting past that knee jerk reaction and allowing yourself to be educated by those who already are educated is not a bad thing.

I think something is perceived as elitism when it really isn't.

JMHO.

[Fiamma]

Cult is a perfectly proper word referring to the worship of a specific deity or group of deities. This definition existed long, long before the modern idea of the destructive cult. Traditional Wicca is a cult- it is the worship of specific deities.


Thank you Mr Owl for your kind words and your well-considered perspective. But I'm going to take issue with one thing . . . your use of the world "cult" to label Wicca.

Call it a "path" or a "tradition" or a "denomination" or a "sect" or a "religion", but please not a "cult."

[Fiamma]

I think something is perceived as elitism when it really isn't.

JMHO.

yeah, that's pretty much what it amounts to most of the time. I think I know of one or two cases where I've actually seen someone's religion be called invalid because they weren't lockstepping just so. Which is ridiculous. It's one thing to say "That's not Wicca" but another to say "You're not celebrating every phase of the moon, with a pink-striped-dragon cauldron therefore, your religion as a whole is invalid and untrue."

Usually what I see is that someone will say "I'm Wiccan!" and proceed to discuss their mish-mash of zen meditation, generic "Native American" this and that, playing with some crystals and reiki, and then go on and on about the gods that they "use" in spells, how they don't like formal ritual and that they never perform any and how they celebrate the sabbats by going out and picking apples or "just being in nature". Oh yeah, and often there will be some declaration of not liking labels, but don't you dare contest their claims to be Wiccan.

That's not Wicca, Sparky. And for anyone to say that that isn't Wicca...is by no means "elitism".

[Philosophia]

Elitism happens in all areas of life, not just paganism. They hide behind labels, insult others, while trying to still have that air of superiority.

As an eclectic, I get defensive when I constantly have to stop the slander that gets used against me by people who refuse to actually learn about my path and who I am. Usually, its just "water on a duck's back" but there are certain limits a person's patience reaches before they start to snap back. Like I said before, I wish people would sit back and actually learn about a person's path before judging it based upon the label they used to define their spirituality.

Unfortunately, its not just eclectics either. Dianics are also frowned upon, seen as unbalanced and "male hating" because they have decided to worship a Goddess. Christian Witchcraft has problems with "image" and stereotypes as well. Actually, I would garner that most, if not all, paths have the problems that stereotypes create and this stifles education and learning.

Now, before anybody jumps up and says that they exist, I know they do. I've met them and I've also met some lazy people. While there are bad seeds in both eclecticism and dianicism, it shouldn't be ignored that they also exist in all paths. Picking on just one or two paths ignores the real problems of Paganism and creates an "us vs. them" attitude that only serves to degenerate into a bullying atmosphere.

If we want education to occur, we need to embrace the fact that not all paths are the same and that we really should not judge a person's path based upon a label. The elitism and superiority complex that many seem to have will only force more to become defensive, especially if they perceive it to be an attack. If we want people to listen to us, we better learn how to listen as well.

[Twinkle]

I agree to a certain extent. If someone tells me they are Eclectic I'm not going to automatically assume that someone is just being lazy.

I still say that labels imply certain things, and if you are going to use that label to identify yourself, then you should darn well practice what that label implies.

To do anything else would be dishonest.

[Philosophia]

I agree to a certain extent. If someone tells me they are Eclectic I'm not going to automatically assume that someone is just being lazy.

I still say that labels imply certain things, and if you are going to use that label to identify yourself, that you should darn well practice what they label implies.

To do anything else would be dishonest.

I absolutely agree. If you say your practicing Wicca, I will automatically think that you have certain specific aspects related to that religion. Its the same with Christianity, Buddhism, etc.. However, I could be wrong about how I define those religions and thats where education comes into it.

[peggyelizabeth]

Elitism happens in all areas of life, not just paganism. They hide behind labels, insult others, while trying to still have that air of superiority.

In my experience, sometimes those who act the most superior are those that are truly unsure themselves. The possibility of admitting that one doesn't know scares some so much that they demean anything that is unknown or misunderstood.

This is not to say that all elitism stems from this, but I've experienced a fair number of people who fall into this category.

Great Topic!

[Zephyrstorm]

And in my experience, Elitism can also derive more from a refusal to look at things from another's perspective.

We each develop pet theories and beliefs, and when they are challenged, sometimes we react defensively - which can be percieved as responding with a "better than thou" attitude.

I don't think any one group of people are more prone to it than others. Each of us has found something that works for us, be that religious, social, what-have-you, and it can be hard to understand the perspectives of others who have chosen something that is seemingly opposed to those ideas.

I've known elitist professors, students, parents, Wiccans, Christians, Atheists, etc. We all have. All I can do is strive to not succumb to that same sense of righteousness, something that I have failed at in the past (and succeeded as well!)

[cesara]

That's not Wicca, Sparky. And for anyone to say that that isn't Wicca...is by no means "elitism".

Unfortunately, this sentiment is all too familiar in Christian circles. Personally, if someone calls themselves Christian, I accept that they believe themselves to be Christian. If they call themselves Wiccan, I accept that they believe themselves to be Wiccan. My perception of said labels plays no role....and it shouldn't.

[cesara]

Cult is a perfectly proper word referring to the worship of a specific deity or group of deities. This definition existed long, long before the modern idea of the destructive cult. Traditional Wicca is a cult- it is the worship of specific deities.

And the swastika is a perfectly proper sun symbol that is ripe with negative connotation. I don't see many avatars touting swastikas around here.

To ignore the contemporary connotation of a particular word or symbol is careless.

[cesara]

I agree to a certain extent. If someone tells me they are Eclectic I'm not going to automatically assume that someone is just being lazy.

I still say that labels imply certain things, and if you are going to use that label to identify yourself, then you should darn well practice what that label implies.

To do anything else would be dishonest.

And what does an Eclectic label imply?

[Fiamma]

Unfortunately, this sentiment is all too familiar in Christian circles. Personally, if someone calls themselves Christian, I accept that they believe themselves to be Christian. If they call themselves Wiccan, I accept that they believe themselves to be Wiccan. My perception of said labels plays no role....and it shouldn't.

You can believe you're something all you want, it doesn't necessarily make it true. Also, there's a difference between accepting that someone believes themself to be something, and accepting that they actually ARE that.

If I tell you that I'm Slovbniefnkmsd, the Queen of Jupiter, are you going to accept that I AM, or accept that I BELIEVE that I am?

Religions have certain tenets that define them. If you're not following the defining tenets of a particular religion, then you're NOT practicing a particular religion. Most (reasonable) Christians that I know define a Christian as someone who has, at the very least, accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. That's really fairly minimal. Yeah, there's a little more to Wicca than that and it's not a matter of my perception of it, but what it is.

[Twinkle]

And what does an Eclectic label imply?

It implies that one is worshiping deities from multiple pantheons in a pious, respectful and studious way.

[Twinkle]

Unfortunately, this sentiment is all too familiar in Christian circles. Personally, if someone calls themselves Christian, I accept that they believe themselves to be Christian. If they call themselves Wiccan, I accept that they believe themselves to be Wiccan. My perception of said labels plays no role....and it shouldn't.



Come on now. I can say that a cat is a dog, but if it barks and lifts it's leg to pee it's still a dog, no matter how much you call it a cat.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Religions have certain tenets that define them. If you're not following the defining tenets of a particular religion, then you're NOT practicing a particular religion. Most (reasonable) Christians that I know define a Christian as someone who has, at the very least, accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. That's really fairly minimal. Yeah, there's a little more to Wicca than that and it's not a matter of my perception of it, but what it is.

Actually , Christos was a title , as Yehoshua the Christos...

Yeshua was Greek , Yehoshua , Hebrew...so a Christian ,
is not determined by belief in Jesus...that is a perpetuated
falsehood...I was a Christian , when I was younger...

[Twinkle]

And the swastika is a perfectly proper sun symbol that is ripe with negative connotation. I don't see many avatars touting swastikas around here.

To ignore the contemporary connotation of a particular word or symbol is careless.


And to disregard proper usage of a word because someone else bastardized it is careless as well.

All it does is give that word more credence as a negative word.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Come on now. I can say that a cat is a dog, but if it barks and lifts it's leg to pee it's still a dog, no matter how much you call it a cat.

A friend of mine , who I knew for years , had a dog ,
and a kitten he adopted , grew up with it , slept with
it , and learned from it...it raised it's leg to pee , just
like it's adopted parent...did that make it a dog ?

[Twinkle]

You've missed the point. Something is what it is. Because you perceive it to be something else doesn't make it so.

The cat may have slept with the dog and picked up some doggy traits. It's still a cat.

Not so hard a concept to understand.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

You've missed the point. Something is what it is. Because you perceive it to be something else doesn't make it so.

The cat may have slept with the dog and picked up some doggy traits. It's still a cat.

Not so hard a concept to understand.


Actually , I have been reading your posts , for awhile ,
on a number of threads...it is you , who keeps missing
the point...and others with the same mind frame...

As many of us , who have attained a certain level know ,
perception determines personal reality...ultimately , that
is all that is important...personal reality...:weirdsmil

[Twinkle]

Perception is personal reality? You do realize there are physiological differences between a cat and a dog?

Are you so enlightened that you would actually call a cat a dog because your personal reality tells you so?

Ignore the facts to fit your own personal reality. That's your mindset.

[Caitlin.ann]

I so dislike labels. :rolleyes: I've thought for two days now about what to call this thread.

And I keep coming back to the word elitism. I am new to the board, but not to message boards in general and certainly not to my own spirituality.

I keep seeing threads where people are answering questions like, "What kind of pagan are you?" or "What is your path?"

Then I see some innocent victim who responds and says their path is an eclectic one. . . that seems to be all it takes. The word eclectic seems - all on its own - to generate swarms of folks who say that they know what it is, but obviously the person who said s/he was didn't. Then the poster is told not to call his/her path eclectic until they truly understand what it means.

In one such thread, I asked, "Just curious. . .for those who know the definition of eclectic, do you also define pagan for everyone else?" I actually got responses in the affirmative.

I may be really wet behind the ears here, but I would venture to guess that very, very few of us have inherited our specific spiritual practices from our families. I suspect that the majority of folks here are like me - they were raised with one set of beliefs, found them lacking for one or more reasons, and went in search of something that resonated with their soul.

My own personal beliefs coincide in many ways with those of my g-g-g-grandmother, who was a Caddo Indian. I do not say I was born to my path, because the generations in between my grandmother and me were Christian, although from several different denominations. In searching my family history, I am saddened at the largely successful attempt to obliterate my grandmother's spiritual history from our family heritage, so what I have done is to look carefully at the spiritual practices of Caddo Indians, marvel at the parallels in my own practice - things that I just instinctively knew - and incorporate those as I can into my own worship.

And she would not have called herself a pagan. When pressed by someone to label myself, I only do because I find that to be a word that most closely expresses my personal spiritual practice in a way that is understandable to someone else.

I am of the opinion that most of us do the same thing - whether we are drawn to a particular "path" by familial connection or simply because deep inside we know that we know that it is right for us. And the paths we follow with their various labels - even the specific and numerous traditions of Wicca - are generally reconstructions or revivals of what we believe to have been the practice at the time the tradition was common. We are at a loss to know the accurate history of many traditions, because so many of them had oral histories until the time when the people practicing them were annihilated by others invading their homelands.

So we do the best we can. That's why it confounds me to see people who have spent so much time and energy exploring their own inner vision telling others who have done the same that they are wrong. Surely there's room for all of us here.

That was very insightful, and I really enjoyed reading your post. In all honesty, I tend to be one of those who judge others, sometimes unintentionally. Although your post has made me take a minute and look at things differently. Great read.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

If I chose to call it a cat , it would be a cat...

A dog , if I so chose...

this ridiculous focus on facts...

As a very wise man , Robert Anton Wilson , said :

" Fact ? Well , MAYBE..."

[Twinkle]

Great. Facts are ridiculous.

I can see we have no more to say to each other. That is a fact.

[Caitlin.ann]

If I chose to call it a cat , it would be a cat...

A dog , if I so chose...

this ridiculous focus on facts...

As a very wise man , Robert Anton Wilson , said :

" Fact ? Well , MAYBE..."

That doesn't compute with me. A dog is a dog, a cat is a cat, facts are facts. Let me paraphrase a saying my sociology professor loves to use: "It doesn't matter whether you believe in gravity or not, if you walk off the side of a building, you're going to fall and die. Whether or not you believe it exists is irrelevant." Same could be used here.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

What are called facts , and history , are not as
infallible , as their proponents would rather
have people believe...

Rationalists delight in forcing others into their
narrow mindsets , and molds , of reality...

[Caitlin.ann]

I'm not forcing you to believe anything, and neither are other authorities in their fields. As my professor states and as I have stated, what you believe is irrelevant , what matters are facts. So I don't mind whether you believe me or not, at least I've been able to share my own opinions and beliefs. See, I blew your theory because I'm a rationalist AND I'm not forcing you into my "narrow mindset". :)

[Shawn Blackwolf]

And I would say to your sociology professor :

A more correct statement , would be , that so far , all known evidence , points to that conclusion...that does not make it
so , as all evidence is not in on this experiment at the time...

[Twinkle]

I've found that people can be so open minded that their brains fall out. Just saying.

[Caitlin.ann]

And I would say to your sociology professor :

A more correct statement , would be , that so far , all known evidence , points to that conclusion...that does not make it
so , as all evidence is not in on this experiment at the time...

Why isn't it though? Thick bodies of mass in galaxies (planets, stars, etc.) have a force called gravity. You drop an apple on said mass and it falls. What else is there to test?

[Shawn Blackwolf]

One...was not a theory , SacredSin...

Two...did not say..." All rationalists "

[wolfjan1]

IT really doesn't matter what path we take.
I really have a problem with people attacking other people here. It is the very thing we are supposed to be equal and share our thoughts and feelings. IMO, this "eliteism"
smacks of mainstream evangelistic rules that say their way is the only way.
While I respect these folks opinions, I heartily disagree.

[Caitlin.ann]

I've found that people can be so open minded that their brains fall out. Just saying.

Quoted for Truth.

[Caitlin.ann]

One...was not a theory , SacredSin...

Two...did not say..." All rationalists "

Seeemed that way to me. I assume when others don't add the words "most" or one of its synonyms they mean "all". Sorry for mis-reading you, but its usually what I tend to think.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Keep repeating the experiment long enough ,
perhaps , one time , conditions would be just
so , to contradict previous evidence...

[Caitlin.ann]

Keep repeating the experiment long enough ,
perhaps , one time , conditions would be just
so , to contradict previous evidence...

In my opinion, thats just not possible. It won't happen, but thats just me.

[Fiamma]

A friend of mine , who I knew for years , had a dog ,
and a kitten he adopted , grew up with it , slept with
it , and learned from it...it raised it's leg to pee , just
like it's adopted parent...did that make it a dog ?

Perhaps it believes itself to be a dog. Does that make it a dog?

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Seeemed that way to me. I assume when others don't add the words "most" or one of its synonyms they mean "all". Sorry for mis-reading you, but its usually what I tend to think.

No problem...but this is along the lines of assuming facts ,
from pre- existing experience , and evidence...it can be
found to be wrong...or seem to be wrong...lol...

[Phoenix Blue]

Rationalists delight in forcing others into their narrow mindsets , and molds , of reality...
There's a such thing as a common reality. Try living in it.


A more correct statement , would be , that so far , all known evidence , points to that conclusion...that does not make it
so , as all evidence is not in on this experiment at the time...
It disturbs me that people who are trusted as community teachers would take such liberties with empirical fact. If you want to live your personal truth, that's fine, but don't expect the rest of us to buy into it.

If you tell me that purple unicorns live on the dark side of the moon, you had better be ready to prove it. The onus of proof doesn't fall upon me -- it's your assertion. Likewise, if you can't (or choose not to) counter proof that someone else offers to support a statement, it's arrogant and disrespectful to disregard their viewpoint out of hand. You're asking others to respect your personal truth while you dismiss common reality out of hand -- and in my dictionary, that's called hypocrisy.

ETA: It's also the height of intellectual laziness. You can't be bothered to research information on a subject, so you just make it up and discard anything that doesn't agree with it? What a crock of shit.

[Sharpchick]

I'm not forcing you to believe anything, and neither are other authorities in their fields. As my professor states and as I have stated, what you believe is irrelevant , what matters are facts. So I don't mind whether you believe me or not, at least I've been able to share my own opinions and beliefs. See, I blew your theory because I'm a rationalist AND I'm not forcing you into my "narrow mindset". :) (Emphasis added to quote.)

And therein lies the reason for my thread.

No one is an authority on my own personal journey - not even me at this juncture, because the journey never ends.

[Fiamma]

If I chose to call it a cat , it would be a cat...

A dog , if I so chose...

this ridiculous focus on facts...

As a very wise man , Robert Anton Wilson , said :

" Fact ? Well , MAYBE..."

I think it's important to understand what is fact, and what is opinion/theory/speculation/otherwise open for debate.

Call a dog a cat all you like, it's still a dog.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

You know , I never asked it , Fiamma...lol...

[Fiamma]

I was not responding to a question, but to your statement.

edit: Er, nevermind, I misunderstood what you were saying. Got it now.


You know , I never asked it , Fiamma...lol...

[Lunacie]

Cult is a perfectly proper word referring to the worship of a specific deity or group of deities. This definition existed long, long before the modern idea of the destructive cult. Traditional Wicca is a cult- it is the worship of specific deities.

So, are you saying that you're comfortable with using the word "cult" to describe Druidism and Hellenism?



And the swastika is a perfectly proper sun symbol that is ripe with negative connotation. I don't see many avatars touting swastikas around here.

To ignore the contemporary connotation of a particular word or symbol is careless.

Good analogy, I agree completely. :fpoke:


edited for spelling error

[Shawn Blackwolf]

If you choose to be disturbed , and believe the way
you do , Phoenix Blue , that is your choice , and
if you choose it , your immediate , and temporary
reality...

I , on the other hand ...left one , of course , in my reality...

Do not place such dominance on so called :

"empirical fact "

[Twinkle]

If you choose to be disturbed , and believe the way
you do , Phoenix Blue , that is your choice , and
if you choose it , your immediate , and temporary
reality...

I , on the other hand ...left one , of course , in my reality...

Do not place such dominance on so called :

"empirical fact "


Do you understand that you are not making any sense at all?

[Lunacie]

If you choose to be disturbed , and believe the way
you do , Phoenix Blue , that is your choice , and
if you choose it , your immediate , and temporary
reality...

I , on the other hand ...left one , of course , in my reality...

Do not place such dominance on so called :

"empirical fact "


Do you understand that you are not making any sense at all?

Oh? I actually understood him this time. And even agree to some degree.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Do you understand that you are not making any sense at all?

All evidence , as percieved by the being I am , points to me
making perfect sense...I have a possible reason to believe it
would do you some good to read some works by Robert
Anton Wilson , among others...

And , according to all evidence at this moment , in my
percieved reality tunnel , I believe , I must go offline , and
attend to errands , and store duties...

However , that is only evidence , at this moment , the
way it appears to be...lol...

[Twinkle]

Honestly, I don't find anything funny about this. Telling people that facts don't matter and are only based on your personal perception and your personal reality is disturbing, and quite frankly dangerous.

Would you jump off a building because your personal perception is that you can fly, and in your personal reality....you really can fly?

Your message is not a good one....and could ultimately harm someone....physically, spiritually, and emotionally.

[Caitlin.ann]

Honestly, I don't find anything funny about this. Telling people that facts don't matter and are only based on your personal perception and your personal reality is disturbing, and quite frankly dangerous.

Would you jump off a building because your personal perception is that you can fly, and in your personal reality....you really can fly?

Your message is not a good one....and could ultimately harm someone....physically, spiritually, and emotionally.

Agreed.

[Agaliha]

Cult is a perfectly proper word referring to the worship of a specific deity or group of deities. This definition existed long, long before the modern idea of the destructive cult. Traditional Wicca is a cult- it is the worship of specific deities.


And the swastika is a perfectly proper sun symbol that is ripe with negative connotation. I don't see many avatars touting swastikas around here.

To ignore the contemporary connotation of a particular word or symbol is careless.


So, are you saying that you're comfortable with using the word "cult" to describe Druidism and Hellinism?


I'm with Fiamma.
Cult is used in Hellenism.
Check Theoi.com out. They use cult a lot to describe the worship of deities.
Theoi.com | Cults of the Gods of Ancient Greek Religion (http://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/greek-gods-cult.html)
Being an example.

Or a Hellenismos site: Temenos Theon (http://kyrene.4t.com/index.html)
Hellenismos' Cults, Traditions, and Practices (http://kyrene.4t.com/recon_types.html)

And many books about the Hellenic gods. Cult is used a lot.
"cult of Dionysus" "cult of Demeter" the "cult of Isis in the Greco-Roman era" -- that was a title of a book.

It's also used in Catholicism to describe the devotion to a certain saint, the cult of Philomena, the cult of St. Bernadette.

I'm not Fiamma so I can't speak for her, but I personally don't have any problem using cult in the theological usage to describe the worship of a deity. I don't have a problem discussing the cult of Aphrodite or Zeus, for example. Or the cult of St. Agatha or Lucy. It's perfectly proper.

Definition of terms: cults, sects, denominations (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm)
Is a good summary.


One of the most confusing and dangerous religious term is "Cult". The word is derived from the French word "culte" which came from Latin noun "cultus." The latter is related to the Latin verb "colere" which means "to worship or give reverence to a deity." Thus, in its original meaning, the term "cult" can be applied to any group of religious believers: Southern Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Hindus or Muslims. However, the term has since been assigned at least eight new and very different meanings. The original meaning of "cult" remains positive; more recent definitions are neutral, negative, or extremely negative:

Positive Meaning:
Theological usage: Oxford English Dictionary defined "cult" as:

"worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings"
"a particular form or system of religious worship; especially in reference to its external rites and ceremonies"
devotion or homage to a particular person or thing." This is the historical meaning of the word, but is rarely today heard outside of religious circles. A reference to the "Cult of Mary" appeared in a newspaper report on the Pope's 1999 visit to the Americas. It simply means that the Pope devotes special attention to the Virgin Mary.

Cultural usage: The word is often associated with cult films, cult bands, or cult TV programs. Here, the term "cult" refers to a small but devoted following of a movie, entertainment group or television program. Avid supporters of Star Trek may be referred to as devoted cultists.

Neutral Meanings:

Sociological usage: A small religious group that exists in a state of tension with the predominant religion. Hinduism might be considered a cult in North America; Christianity might be considered a cult in India.
Additional sociological usage: An innovative, fervent religious group, as contrasted with more established and conventional sects and denominations.
The Observer: An English newspaper seemed to use the term to refer to any small religious group, no matter what its age or teachings.
General religious usage: A small, recently created, religious organization which is often headed by a single charismatic leader and is viewed as an spiritually innovative group. A cult in this sense may simply be a new religious movement on its way to becoming a denomination. The Christian religion, as it existed in 30 CE might be considered a cult involving one leader and 12 or 70 devoted disciples as followers. The Mormon denomination was started in the 19th century by Joseph Smith and a few followers; it met this definition of "cult" but has since grown to become an established denomination of about 15 million members.

Negative Meanings:

Evangelical Christians and Counter-Cult Movement (CCM) usage: They define a cult as any religious group which accepts most but not all of the key historical Christian doctrines (e.g. the divinity of Jesus, virgin birth, the Trinity, salvation by faith, not works, etc.). The implication is that the cult's theology is invalid; they teach heresy. Under this definition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons), Unification Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others would be cults. But the CCM would not classify Wicca as such, because it is not associated with Christianity. The earliest use of this meaning of the word "Cult" is believed to be a 1938 book "The Chaos of the Cults" by J.K. VanBaalen. On the other hand, new religious groups such as the Mormons, Unification Church and Jehovah's Witnesses generally regard themselves to be the true Christian church. They view all other denominations as being in error. Thus, one group's true church is another group's cult. One group's heresy is the other group's orthodoxy.

Fundamentalist Christian usage: Some Fundamentalists would accept the Evangelical definition of cult defined above. Others brand any religious group which deviates from historical Protestant Christian beliefs as a cult. This definition would include the LDS Church, Wicca, mainline and liberal Christian denominations, Islam, Hinduism, and all of the other religions of the world. The vast majority of humanity would belong to cults, by this definition.

Anti-cult movement usage: The anti-cult movement (ACM) attempts to raise public consciousness about what they see as dangerous and authoritarian mind control cults and doomsday cults. Most do not care about the faith group's theology. They target only what they see as deceptive practices, and dangerous psychological pressure techniques, such as brainwashing. The ACM appears to hold opinions about the effectiveness of brainwashing that are not shared by the mental-health community generally. They see mind control/doomsday cults as a widespread social problem.

Very negative meaning:

Popular, media usage: A cult is considered a small, evil religious group, often with a single charismatic leader, that engages in brainwashing and other mind control techniques, believes that the end of the world is imminent, and collects large amounts of weaponry in preparation for a massive war. The earliest use of this meaning of the word is believed to have been in a 1965 book by Walter Martin "The Kingdom of the Cults"

We have seen "cult" used to refer to Evangelical denominations, the Roman Catholic Church, Unification Church, Church of Scientology, United Church of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Wiccans, other Neopagans and many other faith groups. The term is essentially meaningless.

*
The original meaning of the word "cult" was to define a form or style of worship, as described above. It is still used in this way within theological circles.

During the 1920s and 1930s, sociologists who were studying religion started to use it to refer to those faith groups that were not full denominations or sects. According to J. Gordon Melton, "They were a group that just didn’t fit, and they were termed cults. They were treated primarily as esoterica in American religion."

During the 1930s, the Christian counter-cult movement (CCM) used the term mainly to describe two groups of faith groups:
--Those who were non-Christian.
--Those who deviated from conservative Protestantism.

This was the most common use of the term until the 1970s.
-- During the 1970s, the mostly secular anti-cult movement (ACM) used the term to refer to groups who used advanced psychological tools to manipulative their membership, capture their allegiance, and reduce them to near-zombie status.


Also Dictionary.com


1.a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.the object of such devotion.
4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.the members of such a religion or sect.
8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. –adjective
9.of or pertaining to a cult.
10.of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.

[Origin: 1610–20; < L cultus habitation, tilling, refinement, worship, equiv. to cul-, var. s. of colere to inhabit, till, worship + -tus suffix of v. actionhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]

[Twinkle]

What if a man fell in love with a woman...and this woman was married, happily, and unavailable.

Your personal perception says she should be with you, the fact that she is married is unimportant, because in your reality, if she knew you, she would love you.

So you pursued, because in your perception, that colors your reality, she smiled at you. This smile (based on your perception and your reality) indicates that she really does love you and wishes to be with you.


What I've just described is the mindset and behavior of a stalker. You have no idea how dangerous the message is you're sending.

I'm sorry if this seems overdramatic....but I want to show others the extreme....because this is the same mindset that you are advocating.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Just to add fuel to the fire.

If I possess a magnetic field of one polarity and step off a building into a magnetic field of an opposing polarity , with both being equal or nearly equal, I will not fall. I may descend to a degree or be pushed away by opposing fields but not fall.

Hense to say I will fall is an unproven conclusion unless I known all the conditions present in the scenario. The falicy is to assume that thier will be no unknown variables in the scenario that render your hypotnuse invalid.

Add that magnetic reversal is pretty much the concept of an anti gravity field one has many possibilities that lay outside the accepted norms.

So perspection is based and driven upon our own individual knowledge and experiences. As such my persception may greatly differ from anothers.

So yes Newton's law says an object will fall under the force of gravity yet that force can be changed or modified.

With regard to cats and dogs which is actually which? We call that creature a Dog or Cat based upon a social recognized acceptance yet if I am reared outside that norm then which is which?

Facts are simply truths that have been proven to exists within a certain set of conditions. Yet the truth may not hold once the conditions are changed. The fact may actually become false once sufficient testing is applied aginst it.

It was once accepted fact that the element of fire existed in all things. That under the right conditions Fire was allowed to escape the container that held it and then consume it.

That a preceived fact may stand ages before being disproved does not make the fact ironclad. It simply makes the testing conditions insufficient to change the outcome at that point in time.

[Twinkle]

Would you recommend that people disregard the law of
Gravity and jump off a building because if certain conditions existed they may actually not fall? Would you be willing to advocate that people jump off buildings?

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Twinkle wrote:



What if a man fell in love with a woman...and this woman was married, happily, and unavailable.

Your personal perception says she should be with you, the fact that she is married is unimportant, because in your reality, if she knew you, she would love you.

So you pursued, because in your perception, that colors your reality, she smiled at you. This smile (based on your perception and your reality) indicates that she really does love you and wishes to be with you.



You should talk to charles Bronson. His wife was happly married to another and he told the man he was goign to take her from him. Then did so and they remained married until his death if I recall correctly.

Actually not as uncommon as your scenario might lead one to believe.

[Fiamma]

So, are you saying that you're comfortable with using the word "cult" to describe Druidism and Hellenism?

Yup. I tend to use it more in reference to the worship of specific deities, but that is another correct use of the word and I am fine with it. If it means that I have to explain to someone once in a while that it doesn't mean that I dress in funny clothing and worship UFO's, I'm okay with that. (I think I've actually had that come up maybe twice in the last two years or so.) I simply explain to them that the word has taken on an overwhelmingly negative connotation in contemporary times, and that that is only one meaning, and that before fairly recent times, the word simply referred to a religion or the worship of specific deities and is also the basis for other common words such as "culture" and "cultivate"

In my experience, people come away learning something. I refuse to let a single negative connotation of a word stop me from using it in other correct contexts.

Also, I don't know if you talk to many Hellenics, but "cult" is a word that is thrown around quite casually by many of us.

[Twinkle]

Wow. You missed the whole point I'm making about disregarding fact for your own personal perception and reality.

Sometimes it's called psychosis.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Twinkle wrote:



Would you recommend that people disregard the law of
Gravity and jump off a building because if certain conditions existed they may actually not fall? Would you be willing to advocate that people jump off buildings?


Would I advocate it? NO

However I would also not blindy state that this will happen in all occurances. The probability factor says it most likely will but the result is not guarenteed. If I could control the conditions of the event then I probally would, though would it be much different than jumping into a net or inflated bag? The results being driven by height and rate of fall and mass of object falling.

Though in basis I guess the defining factor is perspective. My perspective is to look at the whole scenario and conditions included within it. What part of the condition can I manipulate or influence and what part is left to chance.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Twinkle wrote:



Wow. You missed the whole point I'm making about disregarding fact for your own personal perception and reality.

Sometimes it's called psychosis.


NO I didn't miss it. You gave a scenario I gave an example of the failure of your scenario.

If your scenario had been built around person A observing person B then assuming that person A desired them as much as they assumed then the outcome would possibly be different. Yet that difference would not manifest until Person A informed person B that their was no attraction their to begin with. If person B had then taken person A by force or against thier will then your scenairo would show person B to be psychotic.

Until the indiviudal informs the other of their mis-judgement their is no harm or foul. Once informed then the whole scenario changes if the indiviudal continues to persue the other against thier will.

[darkchild]

Interesting discussion. I actually like to see the difference in perspective.

I do have one question though, how does a person leave their own reality and participate in someone elses?

[Lunacie]

Yup. I tend to use it more in reference to the worship of specific deities, but that is another correct use of the word and I am fine with it. If it means that I have to explain to someone once in a while that it doesn't mean that I dress in funny clothing and worship UFO's, I'm okay with that. (I think I've actually had that come up maybe twice in the last two years or so.) I simply explain to them that the word has taken on an overwhelmingly negative connotation in contemporary times, and that that is only one meaning, and that before fairly recent times, the word simply referred to a religion or the worship of specific deities and is also the basis for other common words such as "culture" and "cultivate"

In my experience, people come away learning something. I refuse to let a single negative connotation of a word stop me from using it in other correct contexts.

Also, I don't know if you talk to many Hellenics, but "cult" is a word that is thrown around quite casually by many of us.

Apparently I haven't had any dealings with people who are reclaiming the word in a positive way. The only way I had experienced the word "cult" was in a negative way. Guess I've learned something.

However... to my knowledge Wiccans have not begun to claim the word "cult" in a positive way, so most would probably still not want to have the word used to describe Wicca.





Would I advocate it? NO

However I would also not blindy state that this will happen in all occurances. The probability factor says it most likely will but the result is not guarenteed. If I could control the conditions of the event then I probally would, though would it be much different than jumping into a net or inflated bag? The results being driven by height and rate of fall and mass of object falling.

Though in basis I guess the defining factor is perspective. My perspective is to look at the whole scenario and conditions included within it. What part of the condition can I manipulate or influence and what part is left to chance.

Thank you for explaining how even something that seems as truthful or factual as gravity and the results thereof, can be changed. There is definately a number of people who enjoy jumping off buildings and bridges and other high places and experiencing free fall, using such things as bungee cords and parachutes and hang gliders to prevent death or dismemberment.

[Fiamma]

Apparently I haven't had any dealings with people who are reclaiming the word in a positive way. The only way I had experienced the word "cult" was in a negative way. Guess I've learned something.

Excellent. :-)



However... to my knowledge Wiccans have not begun to claim the word "cult" in a positive way, so most would probably still not want to have the word used to describe Wicca.


If a word is correct, I use it. As you see, someone's disliking it based on a single definition when there are several is not cause for me to alter my vocabulary. I don't go out of my way to use it, but I don't go out of my way not to. And I actually have encountered a number of Wiccans who do use the world "cult" in this sense to describe their religion. That's my experience.

[Phoenix Blue]

Do not place such dominance on so called :

"empirical fact "
The first defense of the willfully ignorant.


That a preceived fact may stand ages before being disproved does not make the fact ironclad. It simply makes the testing conditions insufficient to change the outcome at that point in time.
You can argue about whether gravity will affect you until you're blue in the face, but for those of you saying gravity won't affect you, or the laws can be changed with sufficient testing -- why not put your feet where your mouth is? I want to see the before and after pictures ... and the taller the building, the better. Just in case, though, you might want to include the aforementioned bungee cord or safety net.

There's a world of difference between presenting a better proof and saying, "This doesn't support my viewpoint, so it mustn't matter." If the power of your belief is that strong, then show me.

Incidentally, the whole point of experimenting is to prove or disprove a theory, hypothesis, etc. If 99 out of 100 experiments prove Result A, then yes, it's important to find out how that 100th experiment differed -- because that one result could be the one that disproves the theory. However, it's usually pretty easy to determine that there was an error in the conditions surrounding that result. That's why you do 100 experiments in the first place, because conditions will never be ideal.


With regard to cats and dogs which is actually which? We call that creature a Dog or Cat based upon a social recognized acceptance yet if I am reared outside that norm then which is which?
Can you show me an instance where a culture mixes reference of dogs and cats? An entire culture? Because then I might buy this argument ... but to the best of my knowledge, every culture that's aware of dogs and cats calls them (in whatever language) dogs and cats and agrees on the fundamental biological differences between the two.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

For Twinkle,

For public record please don't think I am attacking you. I do find your thoughs and comments to be helpful and though provoking. I just have a habit of looking at things very analytically and disecting them.


darkchild wrote:



I do have one question though, how does a person leave their own reality and participate in someone elses?


Honestly it's far easier than one might think. However before you can truly undergo the concept you have to have a bridge to that realility. For most people I would guess the ability to interact or become part of a movie or book is the first step in leaving one realilty and entering another.

I think many recons do this under the guise of discovering the old ways of worship and such. They are recreating the realility of another time and place then step into it from a religious perspective.

I think when one goes to certain places they can slip from one realility to another. Go to an old fort, building or dramatazation of a period of time. Then you can step back into it at any time as you recall the sensation and events that you experienced thier. Grouping those experiences and understandings is the base line for creating the new realility you can slip into when you desire.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Phoenix_Blue wrote:



You can argue about whether gravity will affect you until you're blue in the face, but for those of you saying gravity won't affect you, or the laws can be changed with sufficient testing -- why not put your feet where your mouth is? I want to see the before and after pictures ... and the taller the building, the better. Just in case, though, you might want to include the aforementioned bungee cord or safety net.



Actually the law of gravity is changed and modified every day. Everytime a plane takes off the law of gravity is manipulated by the law of lift and aerodynamics. As long as the other laws hold the law of gravity is nullified to an extent.

Everytime a steel ship sets sail the law of gravity says it should sink yet the law of flotation, displacement and bouency change the rules again.

The law of gravity is manipulated by the law of weights and strength. A balloon rise because gravity has less impact upon it than it does an object of greater mass and weight. When the weight of an object exceeds the impact of gravity upon it the object will not rise or move. Yet manipulate the ability of the object to carry greater loads and gravity is changed to reflect the new conditions.

The very concept of thrust and lift allows an object to defy the force of gravity as an object is lifted into space or the air.

Gravity can not be totaly removed from the laws table but the action or reaction of other laws does impact and manipulate the law of gravity.




Can you show me an instance where a culture mixes reference of dogs and cats? An entire culture? Because then I might buy this argument ... but to the best of my knowledge, every culture that's aware of dogs and cats calls them (in whatever language) dogs and cats and agrees on the fundamental biological differences between the two.


Actually some of the best indicators of this have come from the study of feral rasied children. A vocaulary that is completely differnt from most and may be nothing more than grunts and growls. A second area of some possibility is the study of children raised in seclusion where the norm was established by the leaders. One study of a canabilistic family in 1500's Scotland comes to mind.

[Twinkle]

I think though, that even among feral children that didn't know "language" they would still differentiate a dog from a cat. Whether that grunt have a different inflection, or be a growl....people can still know the differences between animals. Are you suggesting that feral children, children without a "culture" can't tell a dog from a fricking cat?

Come on!!!

[Phoenix Blue]

Actually the law of gravity is changed and modified every day. Everytime a plane takes off the law of gravity is manipulated by the law of lift and aerodynamics. As long as the other laws hold the law of gravity is nullified to an extent.
Nothing's nullified, per se. Aerodynamics counteracts gravity, in that case, but the force of gravity still exerts the same force on the plane whether it's on the ground or in the air.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I'm not saying they can't tell one creature from another. What i'm saying is that the creature we call a cat is known as such due to cultural and social conditing. If I was to take a child raise them to believe that the creature called a dog was actually a cat they wouldn't know the difference.

Without conframation or lack thier of of their identity the person would not known the identy of "Cat" from "Dog" agaisnt the creature the identy is culturaly and socialy assigned to.

Hence the feral child might known one meal versus another but not that one is called a cat and one called a dog. Or to which creature the human identification belongs to.

[Twinkle]

Nothing's nullified, per se. Aerodynamics counteracts gravity, in that case, but the force of gravity still exerts the same force on the plane whether it's on the ground or in the air.


To me...the bottom line is this: If you brush aside what is known to be true because you're "brushing aside" fact because it doesn't mesh with your personal reality....then you are placing yourself and anyone you teach in danger.

The example of jumping off a building is a good one. If your personal perception tells you that you can fly...and you jump off a 100 story building, I'll bet money you'll be a big bloody spot on the ground should you try it.

Analyze all you want, but in the end...if you wouldn't do it, then don't spew it from your mouth.

[Twinkle]

I'm not saying they can't tell one creature from another. What i'm saying is that the creature we call a cat is known as such due to cultural and social conditing. If I was to take a child raise them to believe that the creature called a dog was actually a cat they wouldn't know the difference.

Without conframation or lack thier of of their identity the person would not known the identy of "Cat" from "Dog" agaisnt the creature the identy is culturaly and socialy assigned to.

Hence the feral child might known one meal versus another but not that one is called a cat and one called a dog. Or to which creature the human identification belongs to.

Get this though: regardless of what it's called...it still has physiological differences from the other animal. You cannot make something what it is not....regardless of language.

[darkchild]

For Twinkle,

For public record please don't think I am attacking you. I do find your thoughs and comments to be helpful and though provoking. I just have a habit of looking at things very analytically and disecting them.


darkchild wrote:



Honestly it's far easier than one might think. However before you can truly undergo the concept you have to have a bridge to that realility. For most people I would guess the ability to interact or become part of a movie or book is the first step in leaving one realilty and entering another.

I think many recons do this under the guise of discovering the old ways of worship and such. They are recreating the realility of another time and place then step into it from a religious perspective.

I think when one goes to certain places they can slip from one realility to another. Go to an old fort, building or dramatazation of a period of time. Then you can step back into it at any time as you recall the sensation and events that you experienced thier. Grouping those experiences and understandings is the base line for creating the new realility you can slip into when you desire.

Ah. Been there, done that. I guess I didn't know that was what I was doing! Thanks.
I also wonder if there is a way to experience the reality through the other person or persons perception of said reality. Hmmm. Food for thought.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

darkchild wrote:



I also wonder if there is a way to experience the reality through the other person or persons perception of said reality. Hmmm. Food for thought.


Some of the people I learnt with called that Dream Walking or Dream Projection. You basically inserted your spiritual self into the persons dream and saw it with them or through them.

For me I was never able to do it with success, if at all with all honesty. But from the diaries I read and comparrison I was at it could be done. I should point out the diaries where written by each party in a seperate location and no interaction with each other or changes once they stopped writing.

[darkchild]

darkchild wrote:



Some of the people I learnt with called that Dream Walking or Dream Projection. You basically inserted your spiritual self into the persons dream and saw it with them or through them.

For me I was never able to do it with success, if at all with all honesty. But from the diaries I read and comparrison I was at it could be done. I should point out the diaries where written by each party in a seperate location and no interaction with each other or changes once they stopped writing.

Quite interesting. I have been practicing lucid dreaming and dreamwalking for quite a few months with a small amount of success. This must be why I am interested in the whole topic of alternate reality and connecting with others' realities. I guess I haven't really tried to put a name to what I do yet, but I am working on it. I appreciate your responses and perspective on this topic.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Twinkle wrote:



To me...the bottom line is this: If you brush aside what is known to be true because you're "brushing aside" fact because it doesn't mesh with your personal reality....then you are placing yourself and anyone you teach in danger.



Every major and minor advancement man has made has been due to brushing aside what is preceived to be truth and looking to see if their is any other facets to the truth. It is in the questioning of our truths that we discover the possibilities of greater truths or understanding.

The path to knowledge has always been strewn with danger and peril. Yet the greater danger IMPO is fearing to ask and search. It was by walking up to the top of the building that man faced that peril and began to understand the truth and understanding of it. Fearing to go up or not talking about it causes more damage and mis-informaiton than taking a chance and going up.

Every teacher has thier own paradyn and reality. It is in our guize as teachers that we cause others to ask why and challenge them to seek beyond our realility and discover thier own truths. Some will exceed our own abilities and capabilities, some will only be shadows of our own knowledge.

But if we hide things from them out of fear or perception of danger then they will amount to nothing for we as teachers will have failed.




Analyze all you want, but in the end...if you wouldn't do it, then don't spew it from your mouth


That's actually a poor concept in my opinion. I may not kill a person but I won't hide the fact it occurs because I wouldn't do it. I may fear jumping out in to space on a hang glider but I wouldn;t would not tell about it from fear it may cause someone to do so.

The fact I may not be willing to do something is not grounds for me keeping information of theory from them. The fact I maybe willing to do things they are not also does not give me reason to keep that info from them either.

[Twinkle]

I would agree that innovation and advancement have occurred because of brushing aside what we knew to be true at the time. Advancement in science must do this. I get that.

What I don't understand is this: If I claim that I am a Traditional Wiccan, because I perceive myself to be a Traditional Wiccan....and you read my posts here.... most would cry foul. There is no way in hell this woman could be a Traditional Wiccan. A discussion would then ensue that would tell me why I'm not a Traditional Wiccan.

I could then turn away and say that that is all based on your perception and your reality. Mine tells me otherwise. I choose to call myself a Traditional Wiccan and that's what I am...screw your facts. It doesn't matter than I'm not initiated in a coven, it doesn't matter that I am a solitary, it doesn't matter that I don't know and understand the Mysteries, it doesn't matter that I have no lineage and have self initiated...you're all narrow minded and focused on these little irksome things called fact.

Am I a Traditional Wiccan, or am I a poser that wants to call myself a Traditional Wiccan? If I disregard everything that makes a Traditional Wiccan a Traditional Wiccan...am I just on a different reality, or am I full of crap?

Ask yourself these questions before you defend this whole perception of reality thing.

[Zephyrstorm]

Perhaps part of the problem is that there are different definitions of what exactly Facts are. - There are things that we refer to as facts that are really suppositions.

This would be things like aspects of history - we suppose, based upon evidence, that culture x believed y because of the evidence a and writing b. These suppositions are not facts, and we will never know for 100% certain that we are right. Yet we refer to them as facts when they become accepted.

Those who are in the field in question (whether that be history or astrophysics) may know a lot of the debates surrounding their particular suppositions, but to the lay person, gravity works x way despite the fact that the details are hotly debated and adjusted amidst the scientists who understand it on a deeper level than we do.

When I say that "facts" are debated, etc. I'm not saying that if I declare a dog to be a fish that I could throw it into the lake and it would sprout gills. What I, personally mean, is this.
There are facts: A dog is a dog - they have specific traits and dna that make them dogs.
There are suppositions: Gravity, Evolution, History. - We think that we understand them to a point, but the details are being worked out and we may be proven wrong later.

Then there are beliefs, which, as evidenced here in this thread (not gonna say any names there...) may or may not conform to reality as anyone else understands it. Sometimes those beliefs are based off of suppositions and facts, and sometimes not. Many things that people have strong opinions fall in this category - the Nature of the Gods, Purpose of Life, Personal Gnosis. Not everyone has to agree with these things, and people can come to very different opinions - even if dealing with the same suppositions and facts that relate to the subject in question.

[Twinkle]

I think that disregarding fact and claiming to be more enlightened than another because of your "perception of reality" is a form of spiritual elitism.

I also think it's a load of crap. This sort of crap permeates Neopaganism..and perpetuates Fluffy Bunny Syndrome.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Twinkle wrote:



What I don't understand is this: If I claim that I am a Traditional Wiccan, because I perceive myself to be a Traditional Wiccan....and you read my posts here.... most would cry foul. There is no way in hell this woman could be a Traditional Wiccan. A discussion would then ensue that would tell me why I'm not a Traditional Wiccan


Actually I fully agree with your conclusions here. I think the seperation, for me at least, is that in one scenario the result is "I think I am there fore I am". The tangle proof is missing and all assumption is based upon an individuals belief they are. Their conclusions can not stand up against critical analysis.

Sort of the same perspective of saying I think I can fly there fore I can.

I personaly think the other scenairo is a "I think man could fly so what must change to do so?" In order to prove your theory you must present tangle evidence to support your conclusions.

The same tangle evidence must be presentable in the Wiccan comparrison in my opinion. If you can't present the evidence of proof then you can't be based upon the requirements needed.




Am I a Traditional Wiccan, or am I a poser that wants to call myself a Traditional Wiccan? If I disregard everything that makes a Traditional Wiccan a Traditional Wiccan...am I just on a different reality, or am I full of crap?



Nah to me that's not a different realility thats fantasy. For what ever reason I refuse to undergo the requirements to become a knight in shinning armour so I just create my fantasy where I am.

[Lunacie]

I would agree that innovation and advancement have occurred because of brushing aside what we knew to be true at the time. Advancement in science must do this. I get that.

What I don't understand is this: If I claim that I am a Traditional Wiccan, because I perceive myself to be a Traditional Wiccan....and you read my posts here.... most would cry foul. There is no way in hell this woman could be a Traditional Wiccan. A discussion would then ensue that would tell me why I'm not a Traditional Wiccan.

I could then turn away and say that that is all based on your perception and your reality. Mine tells me otherwise. I choose to call myself a Traditional Wiccan and that's what I am...screw your facts. It doesn't matter than I'm not initiated in a coven, it doesn't matter that I am a solitary, it doesn't matter that I don't know and understand the Mysteries, it doesn't matter that I have no lineage and have self initiated...you're all narrow minded and focused on these little irksome things called fact.

Am I a Traditional Wiccan, or am I a poser that wants to call myself a Traditional Wiccan? If I disregard everything that makes a Traditional Wiccan a Traditional Wiccan...am I just on a different reality, or am I full of crap?

Ask yourself these questions before you defend this whole perception of reality thing.

Perhaps you are beginning a whole new Tradition of Wicca?

There are certainly more Traditions now than there were in the 60's. They had to start somewhere. If someone has been following a set of practices and precepts for longer than 10 years that have most of the practices and precepts that are commonly associated with Wicca - well, I'm not going to argue that they're not "Traditional Wiccans".

Your perception of that reality may be different of course.

[Twinkle]

Lunacie.... you willing to accept someone who completely disregards everything that Wicca is to create their own tradition that has nothing even remotely Wiccaish about it, based on someone's perception of reality?

Perhaps you are...and this is why Wicca is now a generic term that means nothing.

Yay for Wicca.

[Lunacie]

Lunacie.... you willing to accept someone who completely disregards everything that Wicca is to create their own tradition that has nothing even remotely Wiccaish about it, based on someone's perception of reality?

Perhaps you are...and this is why Wicca is now a generic term that means nothing.

Yay for Wicca.

Hello? Clearly you did not read, or maybe you did read but didn't comprehend, what I was saying. To repeat...

... If someone has been following a set of practices and precepts for longer than 10 years that have most of the practices and precepts that are commonly associated with Wicca ...

That is not saying that a newly created Tradition that "completely disregards" the generally accepted practices and precepts of Wicca and "has nothing even remotely Wiccaish about it" should be considered Traditional Wicca. Did that help you to understand what I was trying to get across?

[Lunacie]

P.S. I don't agree that "Wicca is now a generic term that means nothing." However, there are people who claim to be Wiccans who follow none of the practices and precepts that would make them Wiccan in my mind. That does nothing to devalue Wicca itself or those who practice it properly.

[Twinkle]

Maybe I did misunderstand. If I did I apologize. We never have been able to communicate well with each other...I suppose this is another one of those times.

I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me half the time.

My argument on this whole perception of reality thing still stands. Saying you are something because you say you are...and disregarding the facts is crap.

You seem to be agreeing with me, yet I couldn't help but notice the little dig at the end.

So you tell me, do we agree or disagree?

[Phoenix Blue]

P.S. I don't agree that "Wicca is now a generic term that means nothing."
I'm not so sure ... many times I've pointed out to someone that their practice doesn't follow the basic tenets of Wicca, e.g., worshipping both a god and a goddess, only to have others ask me how dare I judge them, blah blah blah.

Well, they don't get to have their cake and eat it, too. If Wicca means something, you have to reinforce that it means something through educating people on that meaning. And sometimes that means calling the baby ugly. If Wiccans don't have the stomach for that, then Wicca does become a generic and meaningless term.

[Lunacie]

Maybe I did misunderstand. If I did I apologize. We never have been able to communicate well with each other...I suppose this is another one of those times.

I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me half the time.

My argument on this whole perception of reality thing still stands. Saying you are something because you say you are...and disregarding the facts is crap.

You seem to be agreeing with me, yet I couldn't help but notice the little dig at the end.

So you tell me, do we agree or disagree?

Do we agree wholeheartedly? Not exactly.
Do we agree in general principle? You betcha.

In my perception that was not a "dig". In your perception it was. Which of us is right? The one who wrote it with intent, or the one who read it and got upset at what she thought I meant instead of asking for clarification even though she admits she doesn't understand me half the time?

I believe I understand you perfectly well most of the time. Just because I don't always agree with your opinions doesn't mean I didn't understand them.

Enough about us... lets get back to the actual topic, eh.

[Twinkle]

Umm....I just asked you for clarification when I asked if we agreed or not.

Geesh.

[Lunacie]

Umm....I just asked you for clarification when I asked if we agreed or not.

Geesh.

Not until I pointed out that you completely disregarged what I actually wrote and based your response to me on something that was not remotely close to what I really meant.

[Lunacie]

I'm not so sure ... many times I've pointed out to someone that their practice doesn't follow the basic tenets of Wicca, e.g., worshipping both a god and a goddess, only to have others ask me how dare I judge them, blah blah blah.

Well, they don't get to have their cake and eat it, too. If Wicca means something, you have to reinforce that it means something through educating people on that meaning. And sometimes that means calling the baby ugly. If Wiccans don't have the stomach for that, then Wicca does become a generic and meaningless term.

I believe there are quite a few people who are doing their bit to educate others on what Wicca is really all about, and explaining why we don't consider everyone Wiccan if they aren't Walking the Walk.

And sure, when I point out what Wicca is really all about and that it's not "whatever you want it to be" I've had some tell me that I'm being "elitist". But that doesn't change what Wicca is really all about or take away from those of us who are following the basic tenets.

For example, when my ex left me for TheSlut, clearly she wanted my daughter to begin thinking of her as a mother or a step-mommy (which was NOT going to happen, my daughter isn't stupid), but even if it had happened it wouldn't have changed the relationship between me and my daughter. It wouldn't have made me less of a Mother.

People can call themselves Wiccan and practice some hodge-podge of gunk that has little or no resemblance to Traditional Wiccan practices, but that doesn't change the relationship between me and the God and Goddess, and it doesn't make me less of a Wiccan.

[Twinkle]

I would say that it devalues Wicca as a whole, however.

[Druchii]

That's why it confounds me to see people who have spent so much time and energy exploring their own inner vision telling others who have done the same that they are wrong. Surely there's room for all of us here.

As long as there are people on this planet, there will be labels and definitions to identify race, color, creed, sex and belief. Although I agree with you, and never understand why we do this, it's of my mind that ultimately we are herd animals in most senses that attempt to want somthing that diverges us from the rest at the same time we crave acceptance.

I think it's one of the reasons I will talk to anyone about anything, but let them lead the conversations. I've gotten myself into awkward situations or uncomfortable debates because of either my or the other's inner ideas.

Maybe we just all want affirmation into a better place that doesn't always exist in the mundanity of the real world and we like what we have in our heads.

In fact, if we didn't we wouldn't be on this forum.

:)

[Twinkle]

Well...I do think that "tolerance" and "acceptance" can be taken to the extreme. Accepting everything that comes down the pike for the sake of "tolerance" makes us all look stupid.

[LadyWinter]

Actually , I have been reading your posts , for awhile ,
on a number of threads...it is you , who keeps missing
the point...and others with the same mind frame...

As many of us , who have attained a certain level know ,
perception determines personal reality...ultimately , that
is all that is important...personal reality...:weirdsmil

If personal reality is all that matters...I will hit you with a car. I will perceive you are run over, you percieve you are fine...we will see who the doctors agree with.

Winter

[Lunacie]

I would say that it devalues Wicca as a whole, however.

I disagree with this.



Well...I do think that "tolerance" and "acceptance" can be taken to the extreme. Accepting everything that comes down the pike for the sake of "tolerance" makes us all look stupid.

I agree that tolerance and acceptance can be taken to an extreme, but I don't think it makes people who are reasonable look stupid.

[LadyWinter]

There's a such thing as a common reality. Try living in it.


It disturbs me that people who are trusted as community teachers would take such liberties with empirical fact. If you want to live your personal truth, that's fine, but don't expect the rest of us to buy into it.

If you tell me that purple unicorns live on the dark side of the moon, you had better be ready to prove it. The onus of proof doesn't fall upon me -- it's your assertion. Likewise, if you can't (or choose not to) counter proof that someone else offers to support a statement, it's arrogant and disrespectful to disregard their viewpoint out of hand. You're asking others to respect your personal truth while you dismiss common reality out of hand -- and in my dictionary, that's called hypocrisy.

ETA: It's also the height of intellectual laziness. You can't be bothered to research information on a subject, so you just make it up and discard anything that doesn't agree with it? What a crock of shit.

Quoted for Troof!

W.

[Twinkle]

Well...if conditions were correct and the planets were all aligned correctly it is possible that he could somehow avoid being run over. And if he was wearing protective clothing he could escape injury. If he was injured, his perception of reality would reinforce that he is in fact fine...and he would be.

Internal bleeding is just a matter of perception.

[Druchii]

but I don't think it makes people who are reasonable look stupid.


I concur, if this was the case the North American continent would look like blithering idiots thanks to Paris Hilton.

[Lunacie]

I concur, if this was the case the North American continent would look like blithering idiots thanks to Paris Hilton.

I'm sure there are some who do judge us as "Americans" (the U.S.A.) on people like Paris Hilton and G.W.Bush, but do I really care about their opinion if they can't look past those stereotypes? Not so much.

[Twinkle]

Well...if all you're seeing is the stereotype, then it's only natural that people would come to a conclusion about a certain thing based on the stereotype. And I hate to say it, but the most vocal and the most seen are usually the most ignorant.

[LadyWinter]

Well...if conditions were correct and the planets were all aligned correctly it is possible that he could somehow avoid being run over. And if he was wearing protective clothing he could escape injury. If he was injured, his perception of reality would reinforce that he is in fact fine...and he would be.

Internal bleeding is just a matter of perception.

Ah yes but MYY perception is that I hit him squarely with the vehicle and he flew into the air....:spinnysmi

Missed ya Twinkle,

Winter

[Druchii]

I'm sure there are some who do judge us as "Americans" (the U.S.A.) on people like Paris Hilton and G.W.Bush, but do I really care about their opinion if they can't look past those stereotypes? Not so much.

I only care if it's Al-Qaeda, they tend to blow up things that are American, and then post a You-Tube video about it.

But yeah, as a whole I know that there are pre-judgements about us, but I take it as a chance to let others know when I go to other countries that I don't follow that mold either. And for the most part, they reciprocate. :)

[Phoenix Blue]

I'm sure there are some who do judge us as "Americans" (the U.S.A.) on people like Paris Hilton and G.W.Bush, but do I really care about their opinion if they can't look past those stereotypes?
I daresay you would if you were in the Middle East right now ... :)

[Sharpchick]

I'm not going to disagree that specific religious traditions have tenets, and that following those tenets is a necessary part of saying you are Wiccan, Thelemite, Taoist, Baptist, Jewish, etc.

But I personally find all the discussion and disagreement about the word eclectic - as in whose path is and whose isn't - ludicrous. If I say that I am not allied with any named religious tradition, that I am responsive to spirit speaking and appearing to me, and that at times that spirit appears to me as Ayanat Caddi and at others as Kali or White Buffalo Calf Woman or Cernunnos, that does not make me or my spiritual practice lazy or ill-informed. It makes my practice eclectic, as commonly defined.

eclectic (adj.) 1. selecting or choosing from various sources. 2.made up of what is selected from different sources. 3.not following any one system, as of philosophy, medicine, etc., but selecting and using what are considered the best elements of all systems.

My personal view is that anyone can try and put a definition on an "eclectic pagan," but in the end it is the personal experience which defines the journey, not some defintion someone thought up and wrote down somewhere to be quoted ad nauseum in an effort to appear to be an authority, not only on one's own path, but also the path of everyone encountered along the way.

It smacks of reliance on reading about spiritual practice instead of getting on with actually doing.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

IT really doesn't matter what path we take.
I really have a problem with people attacking other people here. It is the very thing we are supposed to be equal and share our thoughts and feelings. IMO, this "eliteism"
smacks of mainstream evangelistic rules that say their way is the only way.
While I respect these folks opinions, I heartily disagree.

Quoted for Truth...

And not only is there rampant Spiritual Elitism , there
is also rampant Intellectual Elitism , and overboard and
exaggerated extrapolations made from people's posts , to
insult , and belittle them ( at least to try ) in order to
prove a point , which had nothing to do , with the true
or original meaning of a post , or statement...

But , this does not just exist here , or online...it is the
unfortunate norm , in what most people would call
concensus reality , and accept it as a proper mode of
behavior...I find that dangerous...

As far as the exaggerations , made from my original posts
I never stated those things...my posts concerned strictly
perceptions of reality , questioning what are normally
taken as facts...the experiment continues , known as
the universe , and existence...the book can not be closed...

Can we state... all evidence , thus far , appears this way ?

Absolutely...can we then make decisions , based on that ?

Absolutely...thus , would I , or would I recommend to
someone else to step off a building ?

No...lol...( and that is funny...)...

Because all evidence , thus far , indicates that would
not be a wise choice...I leave the door open to possibility
that one day , that which are called the " Laws " of
physics , would operate differently...just saying...

Now , as far as a tradition being brought into play...

I agree with both Twinkle , and Lunacie , on their
points...that was never in question for me...what I
question , is who decides what is traditional , or not ?

And , should there be more of an open forum , for
new evidence to be presented ? Who gets to sit in
the judgement seat ? What right do they have , and
who gave them that right ? I never did ...never will...

but...that might just be me...:ringaroun

[Lunacie]

I daresay you would if you were in the Middle East right now ... :)

Even there, if they were to think that I was going to behave like Paris Hilton I would laugh. I would not respect their opinion based on a stereotype. Would I respect their ability to treat me badly based on their opinion? Of course, I'm not stupid. Would I try to educate them? If they spoke any Engligh I would.

[Phoenix Blue]

I would not respect their opinion based on a stereotype.
I don't think you quite understand ... it wouldn't be a matter of whether you respect their opinion, but whether you could survive it.

[Twinkle]

My personal view is that anyone can try and put a definition on an "eclectic pagan," but in the end it is the personal experience which defines the journey, not some defintion someone thought up and wrote down somewhere to be quoted ad nauseum in an effort to appear to be an authority, not only on one's own path, but also the path of everyone encountered along the way.


No one is trying to be the authority on Eclecticism. People can and should believe what they want. They just need to be honest about what they believe and how they are practicing.


reliance on reading about spiritual practice instead of getting on with actually doing.

I agree to a certain extent. At some point you do have to practice. I would say that jumping into practice without educating yourself first shows:

1. Intellectual laziness

2. Disrespect for the culture and Deity you're pulling from.

3. Arrogance

[Lunacie]

I don't think you quite understand ... it wouldn't be a matter of whether you respect their opinion, but whether you could survive it.

Yes, I completely understood. If you will go back and reread my response I think you'll see that's just what I said.

[Phoenix Blue]

Yes, I completely understood. If you will go back and reread my response I think you'll see that's just what I said.
You're right. My bad.

[Lunacie]

You're right. My bad.

Thank you.