PDA

View Full Version : just wrong



*oonagh*
May 5th, 2009, 01:38 PM
in my opinion, this article is just wrong.
what is your opinion?

http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usca&c=words&id=13180

Convallaria
May 5th, 2009, 02:14 PM
How is it wrong, in your opinion? The author makes many points that I see validity in.

Sparkles
May 5th, 2009, 03:15 PM
That was my question. There are things I agree with and things that I don' agree with in this article, but some positions that I have depend on how one defines certain words within the article.

*oonagh*
May 6th, 2009, 02:04 PM
welp...it just seems to me that the author is replacing a male god with a female god. i mean...god doesn't have gender and god isn't a "being" of any kind. so, when i saw that, i just couldn't bring myself to buy into anything the author was saying. perhaps i'm being too close-minded. but, i don't think so =o).

Lunacie
May 6th, 2009, 04:45 PM
The author was writing from a Wiccan perspective. Wiccans believe that the Divine is both masculine and feminine, and most often choose to honor that unity/balance by honoring both a God and a Goddess. The author did start out a little heavy on the Goddess worship, but quickly mentioned that some (in my experience Many) Wiccans do honor both Lord and Lady.

In your point of view "god doesn't have a gender and god isn't a being of any kind" but there are certainly many other quite valid viewpoints of the Divine.

*oonagh*
May 7th, 2009, 02:08 PM
The author was writing from a Wiccan perspective. Wiccans believe that the Divine is both masculine and feminine, and most often choose to honor that unity/balance by honoring both a God and a Goddess. The author did start out a little heavy on the Goddess worship, but quickly mentioned that some (in my experience Many) Wiccans do honor both Lord and Lady.

In your point of view "god doesn't have a gender and god isn't a being of any kind" but there are certainly many other quite valid viewpoints of the Divine.

i understand your point. however, it seems to me that the author is equating wicca with pantheism. i just can't agree with that.

KC Destroyer of Worlds
May 7th, 2009, 02:29 PM
i understand your point. however, it seems to me that the author is equating wicca with pantheism. i just can't agree with that.

I think the author may have been using this definition of pantheism: Pantheism (Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): πάν (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%CE%AC%CE%BD) (pan (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pan)) = all and θεός (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82) (theos (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theos)) = God, literally "God is all" -ism) is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence) God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God). In pantheism the Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe) (Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature)) and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law), existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence), and the Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe) (the sum total (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Infinite) of all that is, was, and shall be) than an anthropomorphic entity.

At which point I can understand the confusion in terms of wiccan worship. He points out that "In the Wiccan case, God is primarily the Great Mother, or the Great Goddess. Wiccans who are pantheists may call her Gaia or the Earth Mother, as they believe that she is fully expressed in nature, that she IS the earth."

Which is incorrect from certain viewpoints but if "all" is limited to the earth, than his viewpoint is correct.

The particular point about wicca and pantheism may be a matter of perspective on the authors part. It's a very rare thing for people to think outside their immediate geographic area, much less taking the entire world into perspective, even less than that, living with the perspective that the universe is an entity of which we are the tiniest bit. That kind of thought process can be scary for some.

KC Destroyer of Worlds
May 7th, 2009, 02:34 PM
But I'll be honest I didn't get a chance to read the whole article, I'm at work and the author is a little to wordy for KCADD today.

Lunacie
May 7th, 2009, 04:08 PM
Amarante, good advice there. The only time I really feel a need to step onto the ol' soap box is when I see something written (or hear something said) that clearly disagrees with history or common usage - and then only if it's presented as "the one and only truth." Otherwise, we're all entitled to our own opinions. And speaking from personal experience, mine continues to change and evolve as I learn new things or try looking at things from a different perspective.

Darth Brooks
May 7th, 2009, 04:21 PM
The only criticism I have is small. I think the author should specify that she is talking about ontological dualism when she says "dualism," rather than just say "dualism is this" because I've seen that word used in so many different ways. There's ontological dualism (mind and body) and there's theological dualism ("God and Devil," "God and Goddess," "Horus and Set") and there's social dualism ("conservatives and liberals," "Us and Them"), etc. Of course these different dualisms can overlap quite a bit but I still think it's helpful to distinguish between them.

Also I am not sure how de Quincey's definition of idealism stands up against Plato's. I would have gone with Plato.

KC Destroyer of Worlds
May 7th, 2009, 04:48 PM
Also I am not sure how de Quincey's definition of idealism stands up against Plato's. I would have gone with Plato.

Somehow I don't think that high academia is what homeboy was going for lol.

Darth Brooks
May 7th, 2009, 05:53 PM
Somehow I don't think that high academia is what homeboy was going for lol.

Yeah, I guess I just expect too much. :bigredgri

KC Destroyer of Worlds
May 7th, 2009, 10:36 PM
Yeah, I guess I just expect too much. :bigredgri

Don't we all... :toofless:

I didn't even read all of the article, I got about 3/4 of the way through and just about fell asleep. It was a little redundant, and the author was making a lot of assumptions about the knowledge base of his audience, without any citation.

Shawn Blackwolf
May 7th, 2009, 10:41 PM
So...

Just a minor question...:smileroll

Mind - Horus - Conservative - Them ?

Body - Set - Liberal - Us ?

Or have I mixed and matched incorrectly ?


The only criticism I have is small. I think the author should specify that she is talking about ontological dualism when she says "dualism," rather than just say "dualism is this" because I've seen that word used in so many different ways. There's ontological dualism (mind and body) and there's theological dualism ("God and Devil," "God and Goddess," "Horus and Set") and there's social dualism ("conservatives and liberals," "Us and Them"), etc. Of course these different dualisms can overlap quite a bit but I still think it's helpful to distinguish between them.

Also I am not sure how de Quincey's definition of idealism stands up against Plato's. I would have gone with Plato.

Darth Brooks
May 7th, 2009, 10:56 PM
So...

Just a minor question...:smileroll

Mind - Horus - Conservative - Them ?

Body - Set - Liberal - Us ?

Or have I mixed and matched incorrectly ?

:hehehehe: Well some would switch the "mind" and "body" there, and "conservative" and "liberal" seem to fluctuate in meaning every time I switch between MSNBC and FOX News. But yeah, something like that. Or maybe not! :crazyman: