Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 109

Thread: Cherry-Picking Vs. Traditionalism

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Age
    40
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    The Lay of Thrym from The Poetic Edda.



    I know Heathen folk that hold rites outside prison walls as executions are happening, dedicating the slain prisoners to Odin, just like in the good ol' days... now that's a cherry that'll probably not soon be picked, eh?
    WOW!

    That's interesting. Very interesting. Texas, right? Monthly?



    --Kaos
    “Nothing alive is the same from moment to moment. To live is to face the unknown over and over again.“

  2. #42
    Philosophia's Avatar
     is offline I'm not shy. I'm just studying my prey
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Underneath my books in Australia
    Posts
    36,870
    Quote Originally Posted by ~Elise~ View Post
    And there's the rub...most people won't/don't take that time and research and think it's okay. It is NOT okay.

    Please notice I didn't say all don't take the time. But, lately, I find those are far and few between. And unfortunately, all eclectics get painted with the brush of those who don't.

    Those who follow a Tradition get upset when they see the Gods they follow and honor treated in such a disrespectful manner. This discussion has happened MANY times in the past and my answer is always some form of this.

    I'm not picking on you, Philosophia, I'm using your post as a great example of the way it should be done, but isn't. Accessorizing with the God O' the Week, is not respectful and yes, Traditionalists get upset when they see that happening.

    Using the example a few post above, you want to mix Odin and Kali ma...spend a year with Norse learning, reading, honoring and absorbing, same with Hindu (another year there doing the same)...THEN if you choose to mix those two-at least you have a cultural understanding of what you're doing. (Then, I'll lay you 50 to 1 that you won't do something like that)

    Elise
    I agree with you but I see this as a problem for all traditions, not just eclectics. I think the difficulty of the internet and in real life is that most people don't know the others range of historical knowledge.

    From my own experiences, I know traditionalists (not eclectics) whose own understanding of the history of their path is not only bare but nearly non-existent. It's the same for recons and other traditions that people can call themselves. So I don't believe eclectics are the only ones who suffer from this.

    I think another problem is when others look down upon eclectics without actually knowing the practitioner. If I simply state I'm eclectic, I can assume that I will have a couple of people instantly thinking I'm fluffy and I would have to work harder for people to at least have an understanding of what I'm saying.

    Anyway, I think this whole issue comes down to the stereotypes that are present about the paths within Paganism, or religion in general, and how they shape our interactions with each other (online and offline).

    I'm not saying I don't believe any eclectics do these issues. Some do and I know they get their ass kicked for it by either other practitioners or their deities. But I tend to not care much about them if they're unwilling to change themselves. I just wish that eclectics weren't portrayed by their actions.
    Last edited by Philosophia; February 26th, 2009 at 12:03 AM.
    Facebook::Witch blog::Book Blog
    Gods and Goddesses, Paths: Dianic & Goddess Witchcraft, Theology & Philosophy, Just Current Events, and Political Pagan Forum Guide.

    Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha

    Question everything.

  3. #43
    ~Elise~'s Avatar
     is offline Don't call down the Thunder
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Tulsa
    Posts
    9,776
    Me, too, Philo...but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
    *~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

    Resident Beotch


    It seems some folks confuse "secrets" with Mysteries.
    The Mysteries aren't secret.
    They are there for whoever wishes to seek them out.
    There just aren't any shortcuts.

    That's the Secret.

    Don't ask Life to polish you into a jewel and then complain about all the rough treatment!

    If you're talking shit behind my back - then you're close enough to kiss my ass.



  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Pygmy Forest
    Age
    63
    Posts
    9,751
    I have been called worse on MW , for stating what I do...

    Do I give a flying ( insert proper word here ) ?

    Not one bit...and anyone , with any balls , or ovaries ,
    would not care what others thought of them...

    I certainly don't...

    If you are affected by such...doesn't speak much for
    one's belief , or tradition...IMO...


    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Goddess View Post
    Yeah, sometimes we traditionalists step on peoples toes. We get frustrated and don't want our Gods to be misrepresented anymore than Wiccans don't want to be misrepresented as crazed maniac Satan worshippers. It all comes down to being honest with yourself and others about what you do and believe.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    West Virginia
    Age
    58
    Posts
    3,434
    For me I can only say I have mixed feelings on the notion of cherry picking of belief componets.

    I do believe that it is an individuals right to choose and select those things that make them feel the best in thier beliefs. That resultant product is the glue that holds thier spiritual and religious foundations in place. It is in essence the backdrop by which they will view thier world and thier place in it.

    Yet, inversley, I also think it leeds to the potential for unbalanced beliefs. When one only takes the items that make them feel good or that appeal to them, the result is they may also ommit or loose the opposing side of the lesson. If one only takes the good the negative is left missing so the good trully has no opposite to judge against.

    I think when one takes parts of a thing and not the whole, they do not come to know the whole. I suppose those that do take the time to encompass and discover the whole will always look down upon those that do not.

    I suppose one might equate it to swimming. Those that float on the raft see the water and can feel it a bit. Maybe even have a bit of relationship as they let htier legs and hands sink in. But those that acutally jump in a learn to swim see it to the very depth of their ability to reach. They will always experience the elation and fear that comes from being in the water vice just floating on top of it. Yet both can say they have been swimming.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Pygmy Forest
    Age
    63
    Posts
    9,751
    That just substantiates what I have always felt , and said...

    Every religion , cherry picks from the one source...

    Quote Originally Posted by MonSno_LeeDra View Post
    I suppose those that do take the time to encompass and discover the whole will always look down upon those that do not.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Rollin' In My Sweet Baby's Arms
    Posts
    5,563
    Quote Originally Posted by kaosxmage View Post
    WOW!

    That's interesting. Very interesting. Texas, right? Monthly?



    --Kaos
    The ones that I know personally are in Oklahoma, but I know of others from pretty much across the US.

    And sometimes it's weekly...
    Administrator
    Moderating Admin & Resident Old Guy


    Battling socialism, crackpotism, communism, extremism, Angels of Punishment & alien invasions since 1968

    Have a & a

    I'll stop eating bacon when they come out with the patch.

    Yellow Dog Moderate

    Rick: I need one of those.
    Elise: You need a tractor with a backhoe & a front loader? What on earth for?
    Rick: To dig holes in the backyard. It's OK, I'd fill 'em back in...

    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey

    Blut und Boden

    "I often wish that I HAD done drugs in the sixties. At least there'd be a reason for the flashbacks..."
    Rick the Runesinger

    THE LAW OF THE PACK
    Defend the Pack. Respect the elders.
    Teach the young. Cooperate: know your role.
    Hunt when you must, play when you can, rest in between.
    Devour your enemies. Leave your mark. Voice your feelings.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    25,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Son of Goddess View Post
    >
    But anywho, you compeltely misunderstood that entire discussion. And I'm not even going to bother addressing it anymore, its fruitless on this forum. But for the record I was NOT saying that the Roman Gods were the only ones that were "real", what I tried to say as best I could under the hate mongering onslaught of everyone screaming "intolerance" was that there is, in my humble opinion and that of Rome and other classical philosophers, one universal pantheon of which the representation at Rome was the best understanding. What everyone failed to understand is that the same can be said in reverse, which isn't a bad thing, its just different; there's some tolerance and acceptance for ya.
    Is that what you were trying to say in the other thread? Somehow you didn't make that very clear before. It's an interesting opinion, but there are plenty of other different opinions of course.

    Fair enough, but in your wise opinion, exactly when and where is appropriate? Ultimately, I don't get upset about it, just annoyed of people not representing themselves in a true light.
    Don't you mean people aren't representing a particular path/tradition/religion in a way that you find accurate? I'm sure they're representing themselves as honestly as possible.

    OK...do you just try to be contrary, or do you just really read too much into something? When someone says that Zeus historically is the deity of pink fluffy bunnies with green poke-a-dots and history can prove it to the contrary, then sorry, but facts are facts and that statement is incorrect. Misrepresentation is what it is, yes the Gods themselves may not be directly harmed by such, but those who follow those Gods surely can be. If everyone thinks Zeus is the God of pink fluffy bunnies with green poke-a-dots, I'm pretty darn sure those who worship Him will get a bad rap. So yes, if you stab a Hellenic he bleeds just as would the Wiccan.
    Getting snarky and making personal attacks in order to make your own opinions or arguments sound more sincere is generally not effective.

    There are certainly historically accurate ways of worshipping Zeus, but show me a historically accurate description of Zeus by someone who actually interacted with him, eh? All we really have to go on are personal accounts - and as anyone can tell you, those can vary greatly from one eye-witness to another.

    As to the bigger picture, becoming belligerent and angry in defense of your particular tradition doesn't really do much as far as "damage control" when fluffies are spreading misinformation. The kind of attention you get from throwing a hissy fit isn't really helpful in presenting a good image of Hellenics or Wiccans or any group. A better way to go is to simply offer the more correct and historical information and let people make their own judgment as to which makes the best sense.


    Yes, it is "our" way, but it is also history's way, it is factual that people worshipped X deity by doing A; it can be proven. Not saying its better, just saying its true.
    History from one region says that's probably accurate. History from other regions say something else is probably "true." Facts may be universal, but truth is relatively subjective.
    ____________
    If you make a customer happy, he'll tell 3 other people.
    If he's not happy, he'll tell 20 others.




  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    2,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunacie View Post
    There are certainly historically accurate ways of worshipping Zeus, but show me a historically accurate description of Zeus by someone who actually interacted with him, eh? All we really have to go on are personal accounts - and as anyone can tell you, those can vary greatly from one eye-witness to another.
    Ah, but you address the difficulty in proof with those with a modern mindset. If anyone did show you an account written by someone who claimed to have seen and interacted with Zeus, would you take it at face value? Or would you quantify it in some way? Most likely, based on your own statement, you would quantify it with the statement you already made about eyewitness accounts varying from one witness to another.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunacie View Post
    As to the bigger picture, becoming belligerent and angry in defense of your particular tradition doesn't really do much as far as "damage control" when fluffies are spreading misinformation. The kind of attention you get from throwing a hissy fit isn't really helpful in presenting a good image of Hellenics or Wiccans or any group. A better way to go is to simply offer the more correct and historical information and let people make their own judgment as to which makes the best sense.
    Ah, but as has been shown here at MW time and time again, offering more correct information only works if the other people are willing to accept the more correct version. Most are willing to stick to their delusions no matter how many facts are presented to disprove them, usually by quantifying that they do not accept the source providing the facts because the presenter comes across as "snarky".
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunacie View Post
    History from one region says that's probably accurate. History from other regions say something else is probably "true." Facts may be universal, but truth is relatively subjective.
    Actually its not truth that is subjective, just the person's willingness to perceive the truth that is subjective. Neither are "facts" universal. A simple "fact" like what time the sun rises will vary from region to region and from season to season.
    Brought to you by the
    National Association For Addressing Prejudice Against Jackasses (NAFAPAJ).
    Not all witches are love and light, nor are they all hate and darkness.
    Some witches are just real mothers - like me.
    You cannot carve a beautiful sculpture in stone with loving strokes.
    It takes a hammer, a chisel, and a lot of aggression that needs converted.
    I am aware of how nasty I come across.
    If others have the right and freedom to be sweetness and light,
    I have the right to be spit and vinegar.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    25,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Terra Mater View Post
    Ah, but you address the difficulty in proof with those with a modern mindset. If anyone did show you an account written by someone who claimed to have seen and interacted with Zeus, would you take it at face value? Or would you quantify it in some way? Most likely, based on your own statement, you would quantify it with the statement you already made about eyewitness accounts varying from one witness to another.
    Yes, reading only one "eye witness" account I would probably say it was a nice personal account. If I read several accounts that agreed on at least some of the points, I would grant it greater veracity. That just seems like good sense to me.

    Ah, but as has been shown here at MW time and time again, offering more correct information only works if the other people are willing to accept the more correct version. Most are willing to stick to their delusions no matter how many facts are presented to disprove them, usually by quantifying that they do not accept the source providing the facts because the presenter comes across as "snarky".
    Those who "stick to their delusions no matter how many facts are presented to disprove them" aren't going to be swayed by either those who rant and rave or those who attempt to educate. So how is ranting and raving helping? I believe it will be a huge turn-off to those who are following the discussion, while presenting information in an attempt to educate tends to be more helpful in public perceptions.

    As well, those who insist on being snarky and argumentative may not be swayed by such discussions as this either.

    Actually its not truth that is subjective, just the person's willingness to perceive the truth that is subjective. Neither are "facts" universal. A simple "fact" like what time the sun rises will vary from region to region and from season to season.
    So, if we agree that the facts are also subjective, depending on many factors, doesn't that support my opinion that claiming that the "truth" of one group of "ancient philosophers" is indeed only their truth, and that there is most likely a different truth in other regions... even in other times?
    ____________
    If you make a customer happy, he'll tell 3 other people.
    If he's not happy, he'll tell 20 others.




Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •