Seems some folks dislike or abhor Christians or Christianity. Why?

I'd like to hear from those that fall in that category. I think there maybe some misunderstandings...

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Pashley: I expect you to get just as much response here as I will in the pedophilia thread. They know if they come here to bash they are being judgemental and stereotyping.

But it was nice of you to ask.

All the best :)

Adlerian

I'm just fishing around for what people think of Christians, that's all (or Christianity) :)

Pashley,

Since you modified your question a bit, I'll go ahead & add my comments for you. I don't want your thread to be lonely. :)

I didn't comment previously because you asked specifically for those who "dislike or abhor Christians or Christianity". I don't really see myself in that catagory, not any more.

There are certainally aspects of it that I dislike, but I wouldn't say I dislike Christians in general, because that is far to broad, and assumes that all Christians are all the same. Obviously they are not.

I think perhaps my main problem with Christianity is the assumption that they are right, and therefore have the right (or even obligation) to force the rest of the world into their viewpoint. Anyone disagreeing with them is "bashing" them, or "in league with Satan" or "the antichrist" or a variety of other labels. The Christian mindset in most cases doesn't allow for free thought, or the possibility that they could be mistaken on a point or two. At least in my experience.

Other Christians I consider myself to be quite friendly with. Tony, right here on this board, for instance. I disagree with him on quite a few things, yet we manage to speak to eachother with mutual respect. I don't think I'm overstepping anywhere if I say that Tony is a 'devout Christian', yet he has managed to retain a perspective on things, and I actually do enjoy hearing his perspective. I am not convinced by it, but I find it interesting, and I think he's a rather intelligent person. (Don't blush, Tony!) I also speak my perspective, and don't expect to convert him, but he's not so defensive he has to close his ears to what I'm saying. I get the feeling he actually reads my words & tries to understand what I'm saying, instead of instantly becoming defensive and protesting every little thing I say. In return, I try very hard to read his words as he means them, and understand what he's trying to say, and I try not to be defensive. I guess my point is that we can discuss without attacking or defending, and I find that to be rare amongst the general Christian populace.

Part of the reason I feel...distant I guess is the word...from most Christians is because my philosophy is radically different from the one taught by the Christian Church/Bible. My philosophy nests quite well with the Wiccan rede: If it harms none, do as you will. This seems to drive Christians crazy, for some reason that I don't quite understand. They don't seem to understand me either, so I guess that's just how it is. I don't understand why the Christians feel they have to 'save' the rest of us, or assert their morals as law upon the general populace.

On the Christians defense, I do have to say they got quite a bit right. I also think, however, they got quite a bit wrong. And since they must defend it so heavily, I don't see it getting right anytime soon. But, all in all, that's just my opinion. Since I believe in the 'live and let live' philosopy, I think Christians have the right to do anything they want, so long as it doesn't harm anyone. So I find myself in a position of tacitly supporting an institution that seeks to either burn me at the stake, or convert me to their particular club. This amuses me most of the time, and does sadden me too. It is unfortunate they cannot embrace me as I am, and must change me to find me acceptable. I could accept them, if they could cease trying to change me. A catch-22, I guess it is.

Well, Pashley, how's that for a response? :) Any misunderstandings in there? What kind of misunderstandings were you looking for?

MoonCat,

Well, that was the kind of response I am looking for, thanks.

As you may have guessed (!) I am a Christian. I don't go around witnessing to people, not in the fire and brimstone way, but in a conversational manner. I also try to live my life in the "What would Jesus Do?" mode. I am, however, far from a good Christian, but I am trying, and am learning, and I am happy with that, and I think God will be too.

Do I believe my religion is right, and all others wrong. Pretty much. If I didn't, I'd be in another religion, I suppose, the "correct" one. It's tenents make sense to me, logically and theologically. I used to be pretty much agnostic, but thru some life experiences came closer to God.

You might be interested to know that I have a couple of good friends that are Latter-Day Saints. Great people. We talk a little bit about our religions. It's more of a "so what's this mean?" kinda discussion, not a "that can't be right" discussion. If it comes up to me not agreeing, I say, "I see it this way, because..." and leave it at that. I don't believe the tenents of their religion is correct, but I don't try to witness to them either. Not in a bold way. Maybe I am doing it on the sly? :)

You say the Christian mindset doesn't allow for free thought, but I'm not sure what you mean. If you are talking about an "anything goes" type religion, I don't want to be part of that anyway.

This creed you live by "If it harms none, do as you will", leaves me with questions. How do you know what you're doing is not offensive to God? Perhaps what you are doing is harmful to yourself, but you don't know it?

As far as Christian morals being forced into law, well, isn't that what the majority dictates? It wasn't Christian will that ok'd Vermont gay unions. I'm not sure if there is something in particular you'd like to address?



------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Pashley
I'm just fishing around for what people think of Christians, that's all (or Christianity)


Hello Pashley,

We have not had much discussion in the past so I thought I would join in your post.

I'm going to give a Christians perspective of what I don't like about "Christianity". In other words I'm going to have a go at myself and the religion I profess.

Before I start I need to state exactly what I am, exactly what I believe and why.

I call myself a Christian, when I say this I am not a follower of a religion, I do not subscribe to a set doctrine, I do not claim the title of a denomination. When I call myself a Christian it is just that, I am a disciple of Christ, I follow His teachings, I live by His words to the best of my ability. I see within the Bible the revelation of the whole character and nature of God, and I see it lived out in the life of my Lord Jesus. In Him I see a fulfilment of all prophecy, all the words of the patriarchs, all the Law of God, all the Psalms of praise and all the proverbs of wisdom. In Him I see the whole counsel of God, the whole character and nature of that God became flesh that dwelt amongst men. In Him I find the answer to all my questions, because in Him and through Him were all things made. In Him I have my life and my breath, in Him my very essence, in Him I live and breath, He is the lover of my soul, He is to me the most precious thing I know.

But to those in this place who do not see Him like I do I cry for and ask why?

The answers I see I do not always like, for more often than not the answer is me.

So many things done in His precious name, when His precious name is not to be used in vain. So many things said in His precious name, when in reality He has said nothing. So many times the higher moral ground is claimed, so many times we are on a mission yet we fail to see the casualties of our ways. Through History and time we have wrought a trail of destruction, in His precious name. We are called to be light, we are called to be salt, we are called to bring rivers of living waters to the deserts. But what have we done? Why are we so hard? Why are we so pig headed? So stiff necked? We have built a fortress around ourselves, to defend and uphold the moral code, defend and uphold righteousness, defend and uphold the faith....when we are only called to live it, we are called to let Him reign in us and to live in His presence from which will flow rivers of life.

Yet we feel so justified in what we do, for we claim to be the righteousness of God through Christ Jesus. But are we? Or are we self righteous? Why so many divisions of the church? How can they all be right? Why so many who claim the mantle of "the way"? Who claim the true doctrine? Who then can see the truth amongst so many ways?

And yet we come and ask them to believe, then we wonder why the can't or won't. Can't they see how alive we are? Can't they see how good God is? Can't they?? Oh they must be under a strong delusion, yes of course they are, that's it! However more often than not we are their delusion. We are fragmented, we justify ourselves by our own righteousness. Oh not to forget that we can back it up with the word, but then again so can satan.

We could justify any action, any doctrine, any moral or immoral stance with the bible. If you don't believe me look around, its very apparent to those in this place, as it is in the variety of teachings that surround us. Ahhh but we know Greek and can read the original Hebrew texts as well as the Aramaic versions and texts, so much knowledge let so little wisdom amongst us. For if we were wise we would look to Him and to grow in Him and to Live in Him and to see in Him.

So what don't I like about Christianity, probably the same things a lot of others don't including the above thoughts. :(

However I love the Lord Jesus with all my heart and soul and mind, and seek first His kingdom. And I know that as frail and as faulty as we are as humans, even with the above things being absolutely apparent to anyone who wants to sit down and be honest about it, even then He chooses to use us as His ambassadors, as His representatives in this world and in this place. To use us with all the faults and failing that are inherent to shine as beacons and offer His life in this world, to show His love in all things. For in us they need to see the light, we need to inspire them to see past us and look for themselves into who He is. To discover for themself that we are not all that He is, that we are in reality a very sorry example of what and who Jesus Christ is. That we do not reflect His character and nature, that we do not show who He is the way we should.

My heart is wrenched within me for this very thing, that even I a man who loves his Lord dearly will fall short, I will in the very words I speak fail to convey the very things that people here need to know about His love. And in that they may choose to not believe.

Logs, splinters and stones. We all have them and we all bear them. May we all look past our faults and the faults of others into the beautiful thing it is that the Lord of all Glory is trying to share and speak to us.

For He is speaking if we will but listen.

Please hear His voice and not the voice of men. Please look and listen past us to hear and see Him with your own hearts.


Allcare

Tony

http://www.inspired-tech.com/dovebar1.gif

Tony,
THAT was a wonderful and sincere post!!!!!!
I am speechless....the only word that comes to mind is WOW! :)

What do I think about Christians and/or Christianity?

Well, I think that someone who calls themself a Christian is saying to the world that they are a follower of Jesus Christ.

I've studied the Bible in the past and actually, I think that Jesus Christ set a great example of how to live and relate to other people. So I guess you could say that I think that when Christianity is practiced in that sense, when someone lives a Christ-like life, Christianity is a good thing.

But, like the rest of us, Christians are individuals too, so my generalizing about Christians and Christianity stops here.

In my life, I have met and heard about people whose behavior I would never in a million years have described as emulating the life of Jesus Christ, only to find out that they call themselves Christian. :eek:

I have also met and heard about people who have responded and behaved in an exceptional, almost unimaginable loving way during trying times who I have guessed, "They must be a true follower of Jesus Christ" and I have been correct. :)

Other times, I have been incorrect. Sometimes the person who seems to act most like the Jesus Christ described in the Bible calls themself an Atheist. :confused:

Go figure.

Brian

tony, you have inspired me to trash on my fellow non-believers. besides, you and mooncat pretty much nailed christianity.

i hate that non-believers claim that christians are stubborn and think that they themselves are not. as i have posted before, i think most everyone believes what they want and most of those who call themselves christian simply pick out the parts of the bible which support their beliefs. but it annoys me that non-christians pretend that they would be willing to change what they believe. not to pick on mooncat, simply that she is the only one who has responded, but would you really ever change your mind regarding allowing people to do what does not harm others? is there really anything that tony could say? i think most non-believers try to hide behind this thinking to assures themselves that christians only think things because they are stubborn, not because they know anything. they also want to think that their beliefs are a result of logic and reason, not just their opinions. it troubles me to see them talk to a christian in a condescending way, seeming to say "i respect that you believe something totally stupid."

i hate that non-believers stereotype christians. i find it rare to encounter a christian who really does "shove their beliefs in my face." for the most part, i really find that most christians will respect the beliefs of a non-christian. in fact, i have found that a larger protion of athiests will treat christians as if they were stupid than the other way around. get over it, people, you aren't oppressed.

i hate that non-believers pretend to respect christian beliefs. let's face it, folks, you came here to say what you think. i'm not seeing too many posts saying "you could be right." there's a large population of athiests that are here just waiting for a christian to say something they think they can disprove, so that they can say "you are wrong."

lastly, i hate it when atheists shove their beliefs in your face. not all, but a good portion of atheists like to think that they know something that you don't. they think that if they force you to listen to them, you will change your mind. they also think that you must be stupid to see all the evidense they have seen and not come to the same conclusion.

how's that?

samus

Pashley,

" If you are talking about an "anything goes" type religion, I don't want to be part of that anyway."

Hm, it's not "anything goes", it's more like, if it doesn't harm anyone and you feel in your heart it's okay, then it IS okay. My faith puts a lot more responsibility on the individual, I suppose. I must think before I act, and make sure I am doing what is right. I have no book that tells me what is right and what is wrong, so I look inside myself to determine that. I can pray for guidance from any diety ever imagined, and I can meditate and ask that bit of God that resides inside me (and everyone else) what is right. So far, this has guided me well. There is also the knowledge in the back of my head that if I DO cause harm, the way the balancing act the universe must do works will bring equal or greater harm back to me, so I have great motivation to make sure of my correctness before proceeding. Look before you leap, what goes around comes around, etc.

" This creed you live by "If it harms none, do as you will", leaves me with questions. How do you know what you're doing is not offensive to God? Perhaps what you are doing is harmful to yourself, but you don't know it?"

Well, I think I kinda answered that above. Keep in mind too, I don't believe in the same God you do. The God of the Sky and the Goddess of the Earth, those are my main dieties, and they know me well. They know my intentions, they are with me always, and I trust them to guide me in the proper direction, if I am only smart enough to ask and then wise enough to actually listen.

Samus,

"but it annoys me that non-christians pretend that they would be willing to change what they believe. not to pick on mooncat, simply that she is the only one who has responded,
but would you really ever change your mind regarding allowing people to do what does not
harm others?"

Eh? You mean I should encourage others to harm eachother?? LOL, why WOULD I change my mind?? :)

I wouldn't say I'm willing to change what I believe, but I am able to say honestly that I feel that for each person, religion is different. I can comfortably say that for someone like Tony, Christianity is the RIGHT religion for him. For someone else, Hinduism is right. Yet another person, Judaism. (sorry to keep using you as an example Tony, but I think you don't mind, right?) For me, paganism is right. I tend to embrace all religions to a varying degree, because all religions are wrong. They are man-made, a painting trying to represent real life. Therefore they all fall short. Trying to claim one religion is right above all others is (to me anyway) the same as claiming that impressionistic paintings are the right ones, and the cubists, realists, surrealists...etc. are all dead wrong and shouldn't even be called artists.

I respect the words of Jesus, or at least the words attributed to him. But, that doesn't mean I think he's the son of God, anymore than any other man is/was. We are all sons & daughters of the Gods, so this always seemed a bit strange to me, but that's the way the myth goes. There are varying definitions of truth, I think. Just as Aesop's fables are untrue in the conventional sense, they do teach a lesson that is 'true'. I see the Jesus story in much the same light. I doubt what we read is 100% accurate, but it doesn't really matter, because it's the message that is important. I can embrace that message, or most of it, and disregard what I feel is untrue, or wrong, or outdated... I'm probably annoying the heck out of some of the Christians by saying that, but that's just how it is for me, there is no offence intended anywhere in here.

And I'm not so inflexible as all of that. As I have said before, if Jesus appeared in some fashion and could convince me the bible is THE story, then I'd be convinced, wouldn't I? I have an open mind, and I'm sure a guy as clever as the Christian God is supposed to be could figure out a way to convince me. But, until that happens, I will follow the path that has been presented to me, it is what my heart says is right. If it ever starts to feel wrong, I will change my path - indeed I can't do otherwise, that's just not how I'm put together.

Mooncat,

Have you ever consider that their CANNOT be more than one God, due to the nature of God, that being one which there is no greater?

You say you have two Gods. I think this is a misnomer. "God" implies an absolute; one of which there can be no greater. If you have more than 1 God, you are implying that one of the Gods is limited, which is not a defintion of God.

I guess I have trouble too, with whatever one person thinks is okay, and supposedly doesn't harm others, it is okay to do. This would lead to all morals being relevant, which can't be. There must be one truth. I happen to believe that there there is a "baseline" by which people need to operate by to be happy, and not just the person, but the population at large. Murder is one of those. But you can work it down to more subtle things, like lying.

Also, where does your faith direct you (if at all) regarding helping the poor or sick?

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Pashley,

Regarding one single God, sure, it's possible, but I don't necessarily follow that belief.

"You say you have two Gods. I think this is a misnomer. "God" implies an absolute; one of which there can be no greater. If you have more than 1 God, you are implying that one of the Gods is limited, which is not a defintion of God."

Take a look at ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Celts... Many, many religions are and were polytheistic. Each God & Goddess has a speciality, an area of expertise, a particular trait or few traits that distinguishes them apart from eachother. This might not match the Christian definition of God, but please remember that I am not christian, their definitions are not always going to match mine. I don't believe the Gods & Goddesses are necessarily all-powerful, 'absolute' beings either.

"...just one truth..." This has a very Christian "flavor" to it. I don't think that's the case at all. Just like you might treat one child different from another, there is so much individuality in this universe I highly doubt there is such a thing in most cases. Murder...okay, but what about if this person is trying to murder you? You can change the name to "self defense" but isn't the action the same? What if it's Adolf Hitler and you have a chance to take him out? Lying...your mom asks you if she looks nice in her new dress. You look at her and she looks tired and old. Do you say "No, you look like a tired old woman" or do you say "You look lovely, mom!" Your child asks you if you DID buy him that bike for Christmas...do you ruin the surprise and say "yes I did" or do you fib a little and maybe suggest if he's a good boy Santa will bring it for him? There are grey areas and exceptions to just about everything.

Helping the poor or sick; running out of time, gotta be brief, so I'll just say..."what goes around comes around" and I can elaborate later, if you wish.

It's not the christians I don't like. It's anyone who follows one faith and looks at all others as "silly" or "stupid". Unfortunetly There seems to be more of them in the christian faith, or at least they are more visible due to the fact that they are the majority in the USA. This line of thinking leads to manny other problems. Such as beliving that a person is not able to perfom well in life becuase they can't "understand" the simple concept such as thier religon. Once you can rationalize calling someone silly or stupid based upon thier faith it is an easy path to prejiduce and even genocide.

Pashley,

I guess I have trouble too, with whatever one person thinks is okay, and supposedly doesn't harm others, it is okay to do. This would lead to all morals being relevant, which can't be. There must be one truth. I happen to believe that there there is a "baseline" by which people need to operate by to be happy, and not just the person, but the population at large. Murder is one of those. But you can work it down to more subtle things, like lying.

Also, where does your faith direct you (if at all) regarding helping the poor or sick?

Things such as murder gets out scope of the "if it doesn't hurt anyone" line of thinking, becuase murder hurts someone. Lets talk about something smaller such as lying. Should there be a base line with this? When it comes to things such as lying or activitys that do not hurt anyone I belive that it is better for the person to make thier own choices and learn through those choices. Now of corse this all asumes that the person is an adult and the act does not hurt anyone. Now I know that the act of lying can end up hurting someone and thats ware the leson comes in. There is a line you can cross and undertake an activity that does not hurt anyone and hurt someone. These are just the lesons of life that one has to learn on thier own.

"A wise man learns from his mistakes, but an even wiser mans learns from the mistakes of others" A quote someone or some ware that I do not rember.

Ware it is better to learn from the mistakes of others, it makes for a pretty dull life. By this I mean you end up watching life go by and not taking part in it. If everyone was busy watching everyone and trying to learn from there mistakes there would be no mistakes to be had. There would be no Microsoft (isn't that a great thought?) or children. No one would even attempt to raise children out fear that may make a mistake. This would lead to our end. Take caution, but live life make mistakes and learn. Disapointments and hurt are a fact of life.


[This message has been edited by 666 (edited May 25, 2000).]

Originally posted by MoonCat:
Pashley,


Take a look at ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Celts... Many, many religions are and were polytheistic. Each God & Goddess has a speciality, an area of expertise, a particular trait or few traits that distinguishes them apart from eachother. This might not match the Christian definition of God, but please remember that I am not christian, their definitions are not always going to match mine. I don't believe the Gods & Goddesses are necessarily all-powerful, 'absolute' beings either.

Again, my belief is that those were not Gods, though they were called that, but Deities. Yes, I know they had the God of Fire, God of the Earth, and so on; yet this was like saying you have a Board of Directors that are all CEOs. By definition, you can only have one CEO, one head of the company. Not a great analogy, but hopefully it gets the point across.

"...just one truth..." This has a very Christian "flavor" to it. I don't think that's the case at all. Just like you might treat one child different from another, there is so much individuality in this universe I highly doubt there is such a thing in most cases. .

That's like saying 2+2 can equal something other than 4. For some things, there is only one correct answer.

By definition, there can be only one God.

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Pashley,

A deity is the same thing as a god. You say there is only one god, "by definition". So, I grabbed my dictionary. It seems the dictionary disagrees with your definition:

god -n.
1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male diety.
2. an image that is worshipped; idol
3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired.
God - in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing.

So there you go. By CHRISTIAN definition, there is one god. But that is not the only definition there is, and seeing as how I am not a Christian, I think the definition that I and the dictionary share will be accurate enough.

I was curious, so I looked up deity as well:

deity, -n
1. the state of being a god; divine nature; godhood
2. a god or goddess - the Deity God

Well...that about says it! :)

Sorry, Mooncat, nope.

I will try getting across my point one more time. Maybe this is just my opinion, maybe I am dead on.

God is defined as that of which there can be no greater. There is nothing He cannot do; nothing beyond His scope of knowledge. (This is a definition accepted by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Islamics, at the very least)

Now, given that definition, to have another God would be a contradiction. It would be like having two number "1"s, but more importantly, it necessarily denotes that one God is limited in His ability, in some fashion, which the other "God" fills in. Such as the greek gods, like Apollo,the Greek and Roman god of sunlight, prophecy, music, and poetry, and Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom. Each "god" is limited in their ability. They are specialists in a narrow field.

Now, I realize that they were called "gods", but it seems to be a misnomer, as per my (and several other billion people) define what God really has to be to be called God.


------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Pashley,

"nope"? You are disagreeing with the fine people at Webster's?

"God is defined as that of which there can be no greater. There is nothing He cannot do; nothing beyond His scope of knowledge."

No, the definition is in my last post, weren't you paying attention?? You cannot say "god is defined as..." when you disagree with the definition!! You can say "*I* define god as...", in which case I will not disagree with you. You can define God for yourself, personally any way you like, but *THE* definition is the one found in the dictionary (as you say) "by definiton".

"(This is a definition accepted by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Islamics, at the very least)"

And so? I am not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Islamic, so what does that definition have to do with me?

"Now, given that definition..."

Well, since I and eveyone over at Webster's disagree with that definition, it pretty much renders the rest of that paragraph invalid. But, I'll go on...

"...to have another God would be a contradiction. It would be like having two number "1"s, but more importantly, it necessarily denotes that one God is limited in His ability, in some fashion, which the other "God" fills in..."

And? I see no problem with that. Have I ever claimed my gods were singularly omnipotent, all-knowing, whatever?? No, I have not.

Please keep in mind Pashley, I AM NOT CHRISTIAN. I cannot stress that enough, for you seem to forget it constantly. You are trying to judge my statements by a Christian standard. That standard does not apply to me. YOU may use those definitions and standards for yourself all you like. That is your right. Just as it is my right to use MY definitions and standards. And this time, I even have a dictionary on my side. You might reconsider your "by definition" mantra, because it's getting you nowhere with me. I don't care if millions think that's the definition, there are also millions more that don't think so. Out of all of the entries in my dictionary, there is but a side blurb ..."in monotheistic religions..." that deals with "YOUR" definition. Doesn't that suggest something to you? Like maybe your definition isn't the ONLY one? Why is this so hard for you to get your head around?

Originally posted by MoonCat:


And? I see no problem with that. Have I ever claimed my gods were singularly omnipotent, all-knowing, whatever?? No, I have not.

Please keep in mind Pashley, I AM NOT CHRISTIAN. I cannot stress that enough, for you seem to forget it constantly. You are trying to judge my statements by a Christian standard. That standard does not apply to me. YOU may use those definitions and standards for yourself all you like. That is your right. Just as it is my right to use MY definitions and standards. And this time, I even have a dictionary on my side. You might reconsider your "by definition" mantra, because it's getting you nowhere with me. I don't care if millions think that's the definition, there are also millions more that don't think so. Out of all of the entries in my dictionary, there is but a side blurb ..."in monotheistic religions..." that deals with "YOUR" definition. Doesn't that suggest something to you? Like maybe your definition isn't the ONLY one? Why is this so hard for you to get your head around?

You have gotten a defintion out of a dictionary of what some people call God. Pavarotti is the God of opera, but he is not THE God.

And why can't YOU get it thru your head the simple logic I've tried to use with you? Has a spell come over you? ;)

By the way, would you rather bow to a set of Gods that are severly limited, compared to the REAL God, which has no limits?

Moon, don't go nuts on me :) I'm not a bad guy. I have my beliefs, you have have your incorrect ones. :) I can argue with you all day long about Christianity being the true religion, but what's the point? Are you going to convert? No. God is doing in your life what you need to have done, just as He is mine. I FEEL I have found the truth, the way. You don't agree. I trust God will lead you to the truth.

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

By the way, would you rather bow to a set of Gods that are severly limited, compared to the REAL God, which has no limits?

Now that is a fine, fine question.

This is one of those things that I think I know the answer for Wicca, at least, but the question wasn't directed at me.

But since I already believe I know the answer according to one set of ideas, I'm curious if any other faiths have comment, particularly the various sects of Christianity, since we so often seem to be focused on issues pertaining to that philosophy.

thanx,
Tiassa :D

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Pashley,

"By the way, would you rather bow to a set of Gods that are severly limited, compared to the REAL God, which has no limits?"

Uh, well, I don't "bow" to ANY Gods, so I guess my answer would be "none of the above". The Gods and Goddesses are not here to be worshipped. They are not here just for their own great glory. They are the forces of nature that exist around and inside of us, they are more like "teammates" than "rulers". My teachers, not my bosses. I would feel silly dropping to my knees before these great beings, they neither need nor desire my "worship".

But, anyway, you are still lacking important information in your queries here. The individual Gods & Goddesses are not truely individuals. They are facets of the same "one", the "all". Like a diamond - it is one piece, yet there are several different 'faces' on it. Each individual 'face' is limited, and has well-defined boundaries, yet it is still fully a part of the whole. You cannot have a 'face' of a diamond alone, it is inseperable, yet we can see it is a different part easily. Each God & Goddess is but a single face apiece, but each is still inescapably a part of the "one". All the power in the universe is contained within that "one". We are contained in that "one". Everything we will ever experience is contained within that "one". We, and everything around us, every action we take, every thought we think, every everything is part of that "one". Ad nauseum. Not very limiting in that light, eh? :) THAT is the "REAL" God.

Mooncat:

All you have is subsets of a greater whole. You describe it as a motor, wheels, chassis, body; I call it a Car. What's the point of doing that? If you admit that it all comes from one source, why not acknowledge the source?

And as far as worshipping goes, I worship God because He is worth of it.

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Pash--

All you have is subsets of a greater whole. You describe it as a motor, wheels, chassis, body; I call it a Car.

There Muslim and Jewish traditions who have devoted centuries to the hair you're splitting here. Not that I find it a frivolous hair at all, but a couple of things to note:

* Among the Jewish traditions include the idea that, while many Prophets stood in the presence of God, none actually witnessed His grace. Thus, what the Prophets saw were aspects of God--thunder, lightning and smoke (probable seismic activity), fire, light, &c.

* Parts of the Muslim Faylasuf tradition view the idea that God was entirely contained in Jesus Christ as irresponsible theology, since God cannot be entirely expressed in human terms, that aspect of God found in Jesus Christ must necessarily be incomplete, as it is in all humans.

These generalized summaries are drawn from Karen Armstrong's A History of God, and are, in part, supported by Burton's Lucifer: A history of the Devil in the Middle Ages, by proxy of considerations of the Devil. In other words, these ideas have existed for a while.

Thus there is nothing in a Triune Goddess that isn't found in the Holy Trinity.

Just a little side note. (Sorry to interrupt.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Originally posted by tiassa:

* Among the Jewish traditions include the idea that, while many Prophets stood in the presence of God, none actually witnessed His grace. Thus, what the Prophets saw were aspects of God--thunder, lightning and smoke (probable seismic activity), fire, light, &c.


Not sure about that. I seems to recall Moses seeing at least a portion of him.

Originally posted by tiassa:

* Parts of the Muslim Faylasuf tradition view the idea that God was entirely contained in Jesus Christ as irresponsible theology, since God cannot be entirely expressed in human terms, that aspect of God found in Jesus Christ must necessarily be incomplete, as it is in all humans.

It's true that God limited himself in his incarnation as Jesus. Would it make sense for him to be among us, to feel what we feel, while retaining all his power? What kind of statement is that?

Originally posted by tiassa:

Thus there is nothing in a Triune Goddess that isn't found in the Holy Trinity.



Well, there is one difference; God is in the Holy Trinity. :)

Pash--

I seems to recall Moses seeing at least a portion of him.

Exactly. A portion.

It's true that God limited himself in his incarnation as Jesus. Would it make sense for him to be among us, to feel what we feel, while retaining all his power? What kind of statement is that?

What kind of statement is generally not the point. For the record, though, it would be a fairly futile statement.

To address a specific point which is relevant:

God is defined as that of which there can be no greater. There is nothing He cannot do; nothing beyond His scope of knowledge.

Now, that's perfectly wonderful. In fact, I technically agree. (Certes, I have differences in theological details irrelevant to the present moment, but since they're irrelevant at the time ....)

The only nitpick I'll put down is "god" and "it" versus "God" and "He". By assigning gender and "Name", we are assigning human limitations.

Sure, it's a car. But you're standing in a packed parking lot, claiming that this Car is the only Car in the Universe.

It would be like having two number "1"s, but more importantly, it necessarily denotes that one God is limited in His ability, in some fashion, which the other "God" fills in.

Even though nobody has ever closed the logical circle, this is exactly the point of the Devil in Christian lore. Now, I'm a fan of an infinite god-force, but the necessary implications of that don't always go over well with people who have declared an established faith.

Now, I realize that they were called "gods", but it seems to be a misnomer, as per my (and several other billion people) define what God really has to be to be called God.

Okay ... right, I think. Unless I'm reading you 180-degrees.

However--and this is just because I'm quite sure I'm missing part of that ... does this imply that people create God? ("as per my (and several other billion people) define what God really has to be to be called God.")

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Pashley,

I am replying to your post before reading any of the other replies, so that my answer will not be tainted by what others have to say.

First, I would like to say that I do not abhor Christians or Christianity - not at all. What I abhor is the arrogant attitude of most born-agains that they have all the answers, they know the one true God, and anyone who disagrees with them is being misled by, or perhaps is even in league with, "The Devil", and that person holds a one-way ticket to Hell unless they change their ways, and start listening to Mr. or Ms. Christian's ramblings about God and Jesus and the wonderful plan of salvation (which makes no sense whatsoever to me, and never has).

Also, Christians have a way of telling you, although not in so many words, but definitely with a self-satisfied smirk on their faces, that you are stupid if you don't buy their B.S., hook, line and sinker.

In short, Christians would be more tolerable if they would just drop the "smug" routine and act like ordinary human beings, with all the same imperfections as every other human being on this planet.

To be fair, I have to admit that the Christians I personally know are becoming less arrogant and more human than when they first became Christians (perhaps they are just maturing in their Christianity), in which case, the fact of their Christianity is no problem as far as I'm concerned.



------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Now that I've had a chance to read everyone's replies, I'd like to comment on a few of them.

Good post, MoonCat!! As you might have guessed, I heartily agree with your point of view (and you said it so much better than I did, too!).

And Tony - I have to agree with Flash here - WOW!! Nicely done.

666 - I like your point about making mistakes: "Stuff happens - deal with it."

Tiassa - in fact, I do have a problem with a God who demands worship and adulation - seems like human traits if you ask me. Thanks for asking!

Samus - Yes, atheists can be every bit as smug and self-satisfied as Christians. In fact, I would even venture to say that the 2 groups are tied for first place for that dubious distinction.


------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher!!! Merry Meet, my friend! Good to see you around these parts again! :)

Pashley,

"All you have is subsets of a greater whole. You describe it as a motor, wheels, chassis, body; I call it a Car. What's the point of doing that? If you admit that it all comes from one source, why not acknowledge the source?

And as far as worshipping goes, I worship God because He is worth of it."

That's not quite the way I'd put it. I'd more say that I see SUV's, sports cars, minivans, sedans, compact cars...etc., you call them all "auto" in general. I agree they are all "auto"'s, but I can only drive one at a time. Each one is different, has different characteristics, and so I choose the one that most fits my need at the moment. I am not going to choose a Miata when I need to truck 6 of my friends to the beach, right?

Perhaps the difference between us is that you worship your "auto" from afar, whereas as a witch and Pagan I deal with them personally, "hands-on". My deities are "immanent", they are HERE, around me, inside me, in my past, present & future. Not in some distant heaven, not fully available only through spokesmen (ie priest or Jesus), and not someone I have to wait until I pass over to meet. My auto is not an undriven Ferrari sitting in a garage awaiting an occasional polish, my auto is a daily driver. See what I'm trying to say?

As far as worship goes...you could technically say I do worship them, to an extent. I don't "bow down" to them, in that sense. I do love them, trust them, respect them, learn from them, ask them for help, thank them for my good fortune, ask for information & understanding, ask them to share their presence & power, invite them to walk with me daily, invite them to join me in feasts and rituals, envoke their images for comfort and inspiration...

Originally posted by MoonCat:


Perhaps the difference between us is that you worship your "auto" from afar, whereas as a witch and Pagan I deal with them personally, "hands-on". My deities are "immanent", they are HERE, around me, inside me, in my past, present & future. Not in some distant heaven, not fully available only through spokesmen (ie priest or Jesus), and not someone I have to wait until I pass over to meet. My auto is not an undriven Ferrari sitting in a garage awaiting an occasional polish, my auto is a daily driver. See what I'm trying to say?


Well, I can see you have a limited understanding of God if you believe He is off in Heaven, and not all around us. God is available to everyone, all the time. He is a loving God, but a just God. I'm not sure what you were taught about the nature of God, but it doesn't appear it was correct.

WHY are you a witch?


------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Pashley,

Why are you a Christian?

Originally posted by samus:
[B]tony, you have inspired me to trash on my fellow non-believers. besides, you and mooncat pretty much nailed christianity.


Samus,

I'm sorry I inspired you to want to "trash" on your fellow non-believers.

I did not intent to trash my fellow believers, what I intended was for a "reality check". We so often as individuals get caught up in our own perceptions of things we often forget to take a step back and look at it from another angle. Not that the thing we are observing changes, (i.e not that God changes) but our perception of Him changes like our moods.

This is more or less what I was trying to vocalise about my faith, we tend to have a concept or perception of what we are, but more often than not we are so wrong.

Its like this guy I meet every morning and have a chat with, we look deeply into each others eyes to see our soul. When we look at the outward appearance of each other there is not much on the surface that would suggest some very deep thoughts, that would suggest a depth of longing, a cry for truth. Yet the eyes we stare into know that longing, they know that hunger and they show that silent deep cry to go beyond the superficial, to go beyond the established norm, to dig deep and seek hard, and to be still and listen for the answers. Yet the perception that others have of us, even those closest to us is far different than the actuality of who I am.

This is what I was attempting to get across, it was a message about perceptions. How we perceive ourselves, how we perceive others and mostly how we perceive God. We only have the senses God has given us and the capacity to think and deduce beyond instinctive reactions to understand and go beyond the superficial perceptions. That is unless God moves sovereignly to show us more, and when that happens.....its almost beyond description.

So again I apologise if I gave the impression that I was bagging or slamming or trashing. I was simply trying to look deeper than the superficial perceptions we have of ourselves, others and God.

Its a place where true character and natures are to be found.

Allcare

Tony

http://www.inspired-tech.com/dovebar1.gif

Originally posted by MoonCat:
Pashley,

Why are you a Christian?

At the risk of sounding adolescent...

I asked you first! :)

Amen to PAshley and the rest of those "Saved". Your description of Christianity is beautiful. Simply put, Christianity is "relationship with Christ", not religion. And we know that religion will send you to hell.

For those who disagreed with PAshley, I guess you will find out the truth "one day". The Bible says "it is appointed unto man to die once, and then the judgement". Christians preach the gospel because they want others like you to join us in Eternity with God...not to bash, not to call you stupid or wrong. It comes from compassion, the heart's desire to lead others out of darkness and captivity into a royal kingdom where they will never thirst, never be hungry, never hurt, never feel rejected or abandon, never be lonely, never cry in helplessness or sorrow...

We tell you the truth because we love you. God's Word says, "Know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

There are many who have been captive so long, that when the bars are finally parted and gate finally opened, they remain within their cages because they fear the freedom just a step away. I know. I was one of those.

"Freedom's call is low and sweet, and often goes unheard. The captive's lost her will to fly, a natural act unlearned. Not recognizing its delicate song so sweetly sung with care, she turns her head back to the dark, quickly lest she dare... To race away in frightful glee from this solemn prison, its bars so familiar to her heart she gives in for no reason. Freedom stands a glance away, though not a step is taken, for by the words of her own lips, His touch is now forbidden. Sadness settles in Freedom's eyes, the cost He gladly paid to set this captive free again to fly another day."

I thank the Lord Jesus that He set me free. And it is this freedom, this "soaring on the winds of the Spirit" that inspires our hearts and fills us with compassion, the wanting to set others free like us.

If you say you do not believe because you cannot see or hear God, try getting quiet for a while because God whispers. God bless you with wisdom and grace.

In serviciul Domnului si al lui Isus Christos.

theLass

theLass,

One man's freedom is another man's servitude. To each his own.

Hi MoonCat!! :)

Hi Flash!! :)

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

SEARCHER!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D

It is soooooo great to see you back here!!

How have you been?????

Take care!
Flash

Originally posted by Searcher:
theLass,

One man's freedom is another man's servitude. To each his own.



That's not true.

Pashley,

Please take note of how you stated your disagreement with me in that last post: "That's not true". Not, "I disagree with you", or "My beliefs are obviously different from yours on this point", but a firm statement that I have uttered an untruth. Can you see yourself in my previous statements about the arrogance of Christians?

Christian arrogance aside, spending my life on my knees begging for mercy and forgiveness (not to mention kissing major butt) so that I don't burn in Hell is not my idea of freedom. Nor do I care for the Biblical notion that I must obey my husband and keep quiet in church (have you read much of Paul's rantings on the subject of women?). We've covered this territory previously, and the best that Pagans and Christians can seem to do is agree to disagree on this point.

Flash,

Hey girlfriend! Wassup??!! It's great to be back!! :D I've been doing pretty good, but very busy! My son has kept me hopping by nearly cutting his finger off (or at least to the point where he needed to have a skin graft done), and wonder of wonders - he actually graduated high school following that trauma! That's especially amazing, considering it was his guitar workshop class he was failing before his accident, and he couldn't afford to fail even one class. Now I'm trying to get him enrolled in college for the Fall semester before he changes his mind about that - it never ends!

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

The Christians that I have a problem with are not really Christians, or are at least so misguided that they are missing the whole point. I don't have a problem at all with any concept or teaching within the faith. I have a problem when people who profess faith act and think in direct opposition to the concepts and teachings of the faith itself. The whole judgement-soaked, holier than thou, doom and gloom hypocracy (sp?) that I'm referring to. People who use the church or the name of our Lord to perpetuate their own egos and agendas (which may not only be anti-Christian, but even criminal) are not Christians. This is a very, very, very, very, very, very, very important concept for non-believers who are looking at the church to understand. It's not the faith or the Bible or Jesus or the Holy Spirit that is perpetuating this malintent, but man in his weakness to temptation.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori, very cute signature line! Also, agree with your post. Hypocritcal Christians only diminish the faith.

Searcher:
"Christian arrogance aside, spending my life on my knees begging for mercy and forgiveness (not to mention kissing major butt) so that I don't burn in Hell is not my idea of freedom. Nor do I care for the Biblical notion that I must obey my husband and keep quiet in church (have you read much of Paul's rantings on the subject of women?). We've covered this territory previously, and the best that Pagans and Christians can seem to do is agree to disagree on this point. "

I think you have the wrong idea about Christianity.

You talk about getting saved in terms of major repentence and 'kissing butt'. It's true, you must turn away from sin. Is that so bad?

You don't have to beg for mercy and forgiveness either! If you do some sinning, and you are truly sorry for it, you only need to ask God to forgive you, and you are forgiven. Jesus went to the mat for all of our sins, so we don't have to pay the heavy price. BUT, you must believe in your heart that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and physically rose again. This is God' plan to forgive sinners.

Salvation too, is a gift by God's grace. You can't earn it with individual good deeds, BTW.

Now regarding the role of women in the church.

Basically, the Bible says women may not teach to men. But they are called upon to preach to other women. There is more to it than that, and i hope am not doing you a dis-service by being brief. There is also reasoning for that decision. I can understand why women feel put out about it, but who am I to judge God's will?

I'm not sure what portion of Paul you are talking about regarding being submissive, if you could help me here :)

-Pat

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Originally posted by pashley:
Now regarding the role of women in the church.

Basically, the Bible says women may not teach to men. But they are called upon to preach to other women. There is more to it than that, and i hope am not doing you a dis-service by being brief. There is also reasoning for that decision. I can understand why women feel put out about it, but who am I to judge God's will?[/B]

Pat,

I don't have much time this morning, but let me just say this for now: Christianity, as any other religion that places men in the dominant role, is a religion that is created by men for men, and designed to keep women subservient to men. That's all very nice for men, I must agree. Not so nice for us women, though. Patriarchal religions are oppressive to women. Period. I have yet to meet the Christian male who can see this - hardly a surprise.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Originally posted by Searcher:
Pat,

I don't have much time this morning, but let me just say this for now: Christianity, as any other religion that places men in the dominant role, is a religion that is created by men for men, and designed to keep women subservient to men. That's all very nice for men, I must agree. Not so nice for us women, though. Patriarchal religions are oppressive to women. Period. I have yet to meet the Christian male who can see this - hardly a surprise.



I believe I did sympathize with you.

I find it hard to believe that men sat down and 'created' a religion to exclude and supress women. It is God's word, not mine. Now, if you don't believe that, well, you don't believe that. The Bible is supposed to be the word of God. God also condemns the acts of homosexuality, and that faction is in an uproar.

Anyway, I'd like to point out that women have shared many important parts in the story of the Bible:

*It was women, coming to annoint Jesus' body with oil, that found the tomb empty, and were told by an angel, he had risen.

*The Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of God! Some want her to be declared a co-redeemer, on the same level as Jesus! At the very least, she is in high regard in Christianity.

* I believe it was Mary Magdalene that was the first to see the risen Christ.

* The books of Ruth and Esther are very important in the Bible.

These are just a few. The point is, women are very much a part of the Christian word and world. Everyone has a place in God's world; men are subservient to Jesus. Should they grumble about that?

I hate to see you just throw Christianity in the trash heap because of this issue; there is so much more to it that is available to you.

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Originally posted by pashley:

I'm not sure what portion of Paul you are talking about regarding being submissive, if you could help me here [/B]

Pat,

Paul was pretty insufferable on the subject of women in general. More specifically, he said that women should keep their heads covered when prophesying or praying (1 Cor. 11:5,6), the woman was created for the man (1 Cor. 11:9), if women will learn anything they should ask their husbands (to whom they are commanded to be obedient) at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in church (1 Cor. 14:34,35), and he more specifically addressed the issue of wives being obedient to their husbands, as well as being discreet, chaste, and keepers at home, in Titus 2:5.

In short, Paul was a big-time jerk. If the law of retribution is functioning properly, he was most likely reincarnated as John Wayne Bobbitt in this lifetime.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Pat,

You forgot my favorite - the story of Deborah, the judge, general and prophetess. You can read about her in Judges, particularly in chapter 4. Check her out.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Originally posted by Searcher:
Pat,

Paul was pretty insufferable on the subject of women in general. More specifically, he said that women should keep their heads covered when prophesying or praying (1 Cor. 11:5,6), the woman was created for the man (1 Cor. 11:9), if women will learn anything they should ask their husbands (to whom they are commanded to be obedient) at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in church (1 Cor. 14:34,35), and he more specifically addressed the issue of wives being obedient to their husbands, as well as being discreet, chaste, and keepers at home, in Titus 2:5.



My knee-jerk response is that 1 COR 14 is talking about orderly worship. Yes, it says that the women shall be subordinate to the man, but also, man is subordinate to Christ. Does that lessen holiness? I don't think so. God created all. Let me cite:

1 COR 11: 11-12 "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. But everything comes from God."

Seems like man and woman are pretty equal there, don't you think? :)

------------------
"It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself."
-Patrick Ashley

Okay Patrick,

If you think that makes men and women equals, then how about switching roles? Let's make the man the one who is subordinate to the woman (while both are still subordinate to Christ, of course), and we'll just see how equal that makes you feel,'kay?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

:::::breaks into hysterical giggles::::

Searcher, no offense dear...but the feminist movement was created by a man. As for being submissive, check your dictionary. The Bible (New Testament mostly) HONORS women as the "weaker vessel" and "joint heirs" with Christ. Meaning, we deserve and should be treated with respect, gentleness, kindness, cherished, and all that other wonderful stuff.

It was a sad day when man quit opening the door for woman, quit pulling out her chair, quit cherishing this precious vessel that God had designed to be a nuturing, encouraging presence that spoke quiet wisdom into the life of man. Many of the greatest leaders credit their moms with teaching them to be moralistic, strong, and full of wisdom. And she didn't do it by yelling at him.

;) Just a thought.

theLass

[This message has been edited by theLass (edited June 03, 2000).]

QUOTE]Originally posted by theLass:
:::::breaks into hysterical giggles::::

Searcher, no offense dear...but the feminist movement was created by a man. As for being submissive, check your dictionary. The Bible (New Testament mostly) HONORS women as the "weaker vessel" and "joint heirs" with Christ. Meaning, we deserve and should be treated with respect, gentleness, kindness, cherished, and all that other wonderful stuff.

It was a sad day when man quit opening the door for woman, quit pulling out her chair, quit cherishing this precious vessel that God had designed to be a nuturing, encouraging presence that spoke quiet wisdom into the life of man. Many of the greatest leaders credit their moms with teaching them to be moralistic, strong, and full of wisdom. And she didn't do it by yelling at him.[/QUOTE]

Lass,

submissive (sub-mis-iv) adj. submitting to power or authority, willing to obey.

I'm not sure to whom you're crediting the modern day feminist movement, but I feel the credit goes to Eleanor Roosevelt (who was the first U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, by the way). Now if there's something we don't know about Eleanor, please spill the beans... ;)

Of course, since it was men who were in charge of things at the time, it had to be men who helped us to achieve equality - just as it was whites who had to help blacks achieve equality early in their struggle. To long for the days when women were treated as the "weaker vessel" is as ridiculous to me as longing for the days when blacks were treated as lesser beings. No offense, of course.

You know what? I'm perfectly capable of opening my own doors, in every sense. If I had allowed myself to be treated as the "weaker vessel", then I would be. My husband and I are equals. If anything happened to him or our marriage (may the Goddess prevent it), I would be perfectly capable of supporting myself (and I don't mean because of life insurance or alimony payments, either). This kind of independence is worth more to me than all the chair pulling and door opening in the world. If it was men who had to change the laws to make this happen, then Goddess bless those wonderful men for doing so. I don't know how else to convey this to you, so I'll just leave it at that.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

How about this answer ladies....

Back in the 60's, instead of women burning their bras, they should have just burnt their husbands at the stake????? :D

If men had cherished and loved and respected and admired women through the ages, as they should have, and as it is taught by the Christian faith, then women would never have had to "be liberated". Has there EVER been a society in which women were NOT abused and discriminated against and supressed and disrespected????????? EVER????? I'm not a real history guru, but it seems that ever since the cave man days when they were bopping them over the heads, and dragging them into the cave to be raped, it's just been downhill ever since. ;)

Men and women are DIFFERENT. Yea, just like God made us to be, and on PURPOSE mind you. That doesn't mean that we are not EQUALLY important. The only thing that "women's lib" has accomplished is to pile even MORE responsibility on women, that which is supposed to be on men. So now women have to be women and men both, mother's and father's both. And how well is this all working out for us????? Gee, I think that we can take a look at the children in today's society to answer that question real quick. All we did was let the men off the hook. And do you know what's really sad??? THEY STILL DON'T GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori,

How about the idea of sharing responsibility equally? So that either partner is capable of taking over the other's function if something should happen? The way I see things, if the partners in a marriage (or any other domestic arrangement) truly love and respect eachother, neither would want to see the other become helpless in the event of their demise, agreed?

As for the woman having the entire responsibility for raising children, I have to disagree here. The DA's office seems to have a pretty long reach, at least in the U.S. Where else can a woman, who happens to be a lesbian, plan to have a relationship with an Air Force man for the sole purpose of conceiving a child (unbeknownst to the unfortunate male), kick him out once the deed is done (telling him that she doesn't need him to help her raise the child and he's not to tell her child what to do!), have the child and give it her last name, and then have the DA's office go after him for child support for the next 18 years? Yes, as you might have guessed, this is an actual event that has occured in the life of someone I care about.

I'm not saying this is a good thing - quite the opposite, in fact. However, this is a far cry from the kind of pathetic powerlessness that you're describing.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,

Pathetic powerlessness??? I did not imply that at all. I think you misunderstand my idea here. I think that women ARE powerful, and just as powerful, or maybe even more so than men, just in DIFFERENT WAYS. The problem has always been in society that OUR power as women has never been respected or glorified or appreciated by men. And unfortunately, one of the ways that men are MORE powerful than women is in the area of brut force strength. It always comes down to bullying with them doesn't it seem? I'm talking about kind of a ying-yang type situation, where if BOTH genders were to recognize, appreciate, respect, and capitalize on each others different strengths, they would benefit from a symbiotic relationship. It seems that you are trying to deny the fact that there are inherent differing traits and strengths and weaknesses between men and women, and I believe that is wishful thinking. I don't think for one second that a woman is not capable of existing and prospering or raising a child without a man or vice versa, I'm just saying there is a better way that God designed for us, that many of us seem to be in denial of. I am a woman, and I like being a woman. I don't want to be a man. I appreciate men for their strength and discipline and courage and determination. And a man should appreciate a woman for her intuitiveness, gentleness, nuturing, and teaching abilities. Women and men, in the right respectful relationship stand to learn a lot from each other, and to benefit from each other immensely. LET'S BE PROUD OF OUR DIFFERENCES, AND ADMIRE THEM IN EACH OTHER! HIP HIP HOORAY!

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori,

For the most part, I actually agree with your last post (hey - how'd that happen?? ;) )

I think many of the areas where women seem to think they don't have any innate strength (and I'm not referring to physical strength here), it's because they were told they don't have any innate strength in those areas because of their sex. For example, it was always assumed that females are less capable than men in areas of math, science and logic. Once upon a time, I actually believed that myself, and sure enough, I wasn't very good at math or science (the logic thing always came very naturally to me, regardless of what anyone said about women and logic). Then, once I began to see through all the B.S., I decided to go back to college, and took science and math courses - excelled at them and loved them - and eventually I went into the electrical engineering field.

After all that, I can't imagine having to stay home and be a housewife my whole life, simply because I was born female. I'm definitely not the domestic goddess type, and would have been extremely dissatisfied with that role. I thank the Goddess I had a choice.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,

Great minds think alike. I'm a math geek too! I think that what you're referring to is called discrimination and oppression. The very same discrimination and oppression that I myself have a serious problem with. Christianity doesn't teach men to think this way, their fragile egos do. You would think that as much strength as a typical man should have, they wouldn't be so threatened by a smart and capable woman, huh? *shrug*

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Pashley,

Okay, I'll play. I am a witch because that is the religious path placed before me. All of the experiences in my life placed me at the foot of that trail, so I began to walk it.

Now, let me swap questions on you. What do you think a witch is? I betcha you have about a thousand misconceptions, at the least. You can educate me about my misconceptions, and I'll educate you about yours, deal?

Lori, Searcher:

Just horning in on your conversation here... :) It somewhat reminds me of Tiassa's points about homosexuals having to cry out for rights - if women & gays had the equality to start out with, there wouldn't be such an outcry and push for those same rights now and in the past. For some people, it works out for the male to be the breadwinner and the female to be the bread-cooker, but in modern day living, it takes 2 incomes to make it by, and since wifey-poo's gotta work, that means hubby's gotta do dishes and clean up cat puke too. I don't really think there is such a thing as gender roles in today's society, at least not in the US. Any such thing is mostly wishful thinking, or rememberances of the past when the economy was different. Or you're CEO, maybe, and can afford to have a single income. LOL.

MC,

You're exactly right. No oppression; no rebellion necessary. It's just a shame is all. I think it's safe to say that regardless of who does what within a household, that it shouldn't be necessary for people to work outside the home as much as they have to to make ends meet nowadays. I think personally, that it's the most ridiculous thing in the world to think of handing my 6 week old baby over to some $8/hr kid in a crowded disease infested day care center for her to raise my child for me, along with the 17 others she has to raise, while I go out to earn a buck as some corporate exec. I mean, take a look at a lot of these kids and teens nowadays....this isn't brain surgery you know? Not too long ago on the news they reported the results of a scientific study that concluded that the use of day care centers reduces the intensity of the bond between a mother and a child. I'm asking, hello, did it really take a flippin' scientific study to reach that brilliant deduction?!?!?! I mean just how f'ing stupid are we anyway????? Crap like that; I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori,

(shaking head in dismay) No kidding! And they wonder why kids are so screwed up these days!! Gosh, maybe the reason these teenagers are feeling so disconnected and lost that they go and slaughter their classmates is because (duh) they weren't RAISED by anyone?? Instead they were shuffled from place to place like a piece of luggage while mom and pop spent al their time on the persuit of the allmighty dollar. I mean, really, puberty is hard enough to get through! All the self doubt and depression that just naturally happens to most teens...I can't imagine trying to deal with all of that AND trying to shake the feeling that your parents view you as a piece of furniture or something at the same time.

I'd say go ahead & cry Lori. That's what I do. :(

Originally posted by Searcher:
Okay Patrick,

If you think that makes men and women equals, then how about switching roles? Let's make the man the one who is subordinate to the woman (while both are still subordinate to Christ, of course), and we'll just see how equal that makes you feel,'kay?



Why not focus on Christ, and not the minuatie of subservency, sister?

Originally posted by theLass:
:::::breaks into hysterical giggles::::

Searcher, no offense dear...but the feminist movement was created by a man. As for being submissive, check your dictionary. The Bible (New Testament mostly) HONORS women as the "weaker vessel" and "joint heirs" with Christ. Meaning, we deserve and should be treated with respect, gentleness, kindness, cherished, and all that other wonderful stuff.

It was a sad day when man quit opening the door for woman, quit pulling out her chair, quit cherishing this precious vessel that God had designed to be a nuturing, encouraging presence that spoke quiet wisdom into the life of man. Many of the greatest leaders credit their moms with teaching them to be moralistic, strong, and full of wisdom. And she didn't do it by yelling at him.

;) Just a thought.

theLass

[This message has been edited by theLass (edited June 03, 2000).]

DOUBLE KUDOS on that post!

Personally, I enjoy treating a lady like a lady, opening doors and so on. I think the woman's movement has done more to hurt women than help them, but that's another thread :)

Originally posted by Searcher:
QUOTE]
You know what? I'm perfectly capable of opening my own doors, in every sense. If I had allowed myself to be treated as the "weaker vessel", then I would be. My husband and I are equals. If anything happened to him or our marriage (may the Goddess prevent it), I would be perfectly capable of supporting myself (and I don't mean because of life insurance or alimony payments, either). This kind of independence is worth more to me than all the chair pulling and door opening in the world. If it was men who had to change the laws to make this happen, then Goddess bless those wonderful men for doing so. I don't know how else to convey this to you, so I'll just leave it at that.



You just don't get it. It's a sign of respect and caring, not inability and scorn.

What's this Goddess stuff?

Originally posted by MoonCat:

Now, let me swap questions on you. What do you think a witch is? I betcha you have about a thousand misconceptions, at the least. You can educate me about my misconceptions, and I'll educate you about yours, deal?


My UNDERSTANDING is that the wicca religion has paganistic practices, including animal sacrifice. They have Gods and Goddesses, such as of the Earth. I don't know about spells and the like, I assume that is part of it.

My UNDERSTANDING is that the wicca religion has paganistic practices, including animal sacrifice. They have Gods and Goddesses, such as of the Earth. I don't know about spells and the like, I assume that is part of it.

Animal sacrifice, Pat? Maybe you're thinking of Satanism - which is a far cry from Wicca or Witchcraft. I've never heard of Witches being involved in animal sacrifices. As a matter of fact, most Witches have respect for all life.

If you want to learn more about Witches and Wicca, go to this webpage address:
http://www.witchvox.com/basics/wfaq.html


(Sorry, MoonCat - I had to horn in on this one! And of course, you're certainly welcome to horn in on my conversations anytime you like! :) )

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

You just don't get it. It's a sign of respect and caring, not inability and scorn.

What's this Goddess stuff?

Yes, holding a door open for someone when you are the first one at the door is respectful - I do that all the time, as it is done for me all the time. That's just common human courtesy. I think you misunderstood my play on words in that post - oh well, it's certainly not the first time that's happened. I'm not saying that a man cannot open a door or pull out a chair for me - what I'm saying is that I'm not crushed or incapacitated in any way if he doesn't - that's not what's important to me.

I'll tell you something - it was my husband who encouraged me to go back to school and insisted that I learn to hold my own in this world. And he believed in me when no one else did - including myself. The form of respect he displayed toward me as an equal human being by that action was far greater than anything anyone else has ever done for me - it set me free of my bonds like nothing else ever could. When the rest of the world was trying to shackle me with chains, he pointed out that I had wings, and he helped me to fly. For that I love and respect him more than anyone else in the world, and far more than my words can convey. Do you begin to understand what I am saying yet?

As for the "Goddess stuff", please see the website for which I provided a link in my previous post.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Why not focus on Christ, and not the minuatie of subservency, sister?

Minutiae of subserviency? Easy for you to say, Pat. But I guess that depends on which end of that stick you happen to be on, don't you think?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Hey Witch. Say, do you have any witch powers, like The Gap Troll from Mad Tv???

Infinity,

Which Witch? And what's a "Gap Troll"? Sorry, I don't watch TV - Mad or otherwise (except for X-Files - I love X-Files!).

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,

I'll tell you something - it was my husband who encouraged me to go back to school and insisted that I learn to hold my own in this world. And he believed in me when no one else did - including myself. The form of respect he displayed toward me as an equal human being by that action was far greater than anything anyone else has ever done for me - it set me free of my bonds like nothing else ever could. When the rest of the world was trying to shackle me with chains, he pointed out that I had wings, and he helped me to fly. For that I love and respect him more than anyone else in the world, and far more than my words can convey. Do you begin to understand what I am saying yet?

That was a great post, Searcher! I am happy for you that you have such a great husband!
Take care,
Flash

Searcher,

I don't mind a bit!! Between the two of us, maybe we can clear the air a bit, hm? :)

Pashley,

"My UNDERSTANDING is that the wicca religion has paganistic practices, including animal sacrifice. They have Gods and Goddesses, such as of the Earth. I don't know about spells and the like, I assume that is part of it. "

Well, honestly I'm surprised you know the word "wicca". You are however, as Searcher said, way off base on the animal sacrifice thing.

Since I don't know if you'll go to the site Searcher posted (and it's a good one, you really should check it out), I'll give you a few tidbits.

1. Not all pagans are witches
2. Not all pagans are wiccan
3. Not all witches are wiccan

Confused yet? :)

Pagan generally refers to earth-based spirituality. Not all pagans believe in a God and Goddess, some believe in one or the other, some in both, some in neither. Pagan is somewhat of an umbrella term that includes many different types of beliefs.

Wicca is a specific pagan religion. Most Wiccans would agree they are witches, but not all. It is very difficult to nail down any one thing that all witches/pagans/wiccans do or do not believe, or do, but generally speaking, I think most Wiccans do consider themselves witches.

So what's a witch?

Witchcraft is also known as the Craft of the Wise. Some say "witch" takes it's meaning from a word that means "to bend" or "to change". A witch then is someone who uses the natural power present in the universe to cause a change of some kind. We do this with rituals, prayers, and spells.

Okay, so what's a spell?

A spell can be considered a prayer with "pow". During a spell, a witch gathers this present energy inside him/herself, "programs" it with their need, and then releases it out into the world to do it's work.

So what's to stop a witch from doing bad/evil?

Most witches are aware of the balancing force in the universe, commonly called karma. We are aware that each action causes a reaction. We believe that each thing we do, positive or negative will come back to us the same way, positive or negative. In a nutshell, this means if I curse my boss because he's a jerk, somehow that curse will come back and harm me, possibly even worse than it harmed him. If I instead bless him because he's a jerk (probably because something is going bad in his life), somehow that blessing will come back and benefit me, possibly even more than it benefitted him. An "evil" witch will soon find him/herself so bogged down in negativity from all sides they will either harm themselves trying to escape it, or 'burn out'. Out of all the witches I have met, not a single one is dumb enough to cast a harmful spell. It's one of the first things we learn.

Well, what about Satanic Witches?

Oxymoron, plain and simple. No such thing. Witches don't believe in Satan, so how could we worship him or gain his power? Anyone claiming to be a Satanic Witch is a couple sandwiches short of a picnic, in my opinion. And they don't frighten me in the least, they cannot harm me, they are powerless.

So what about animal sacrifice?

Witches & pagans believe that every living thing is sacred, that we all carry a bit of the divine inside of us, plants, animals, people, all. Personally, I am vegetarian, I will not even eat their flesh, much less sacrifice them. Some groups I have read of will humanely kill their own food animals, and give the blood and other unused parts back to the earth as payment. Personally, since I am a vegetarian, I find this to be rather disgusting, but I guess if you're going to eat the critter, you might as well do it with respect. Beats anal electrocution or whatever horrid things they do to food animals these days. (shudder) Personally, I can't even kill a spider, I have to put it outside and just ask it not to come back inside the house. Nor can I wear leather without extreme guilt and heebie-jeebies. Which is a pity, because I love Doc Martin boots.

What's up with the God and Goddess?

The God and Goddess are actually (in my opinion) artificial labels placed on two aspects of the "One" power present in the universe. This is another point you will find lots of disagreement on in the Pagan community, some Pagans are strictly Goddess worshippers, and see any kind of male God as secondary. Others (like myself) see them as equals, two halves of the whole. Still others are God worshippers, and see Goddess as secondary. And I'm sure there are even more factions than that.

One thing I think most Pagans will agree on is that the Gods and Goddesses are all aspects of the same "One". We humans are used to a male-female polarity, so that's how we percieve the divine. But that's not it's true nature. My opinion is that it's true nature is extremely nebulous, and we'll never comprehend it fully, we're not equipped for it. But I don't have to, and that's the beauty of it. I can pick out whatever parts make sense to me, and that's plenty good enough. Kind of like how even though you don't know exactly how your TV works, you can still turn it on, and find a specific channel, adjust the volume, etc.

Okay, I said a few "tidbits", I think I've gone over my limit. :) Any questions?

Searcher,

I still have no clue about this Goddess stuff. Your website, it looks like, is for some band?

And what are these terrible "shackles" placed upon you?

Originally posted by Searcher:
Minutiae of subserviency? Easy for you to say, Pat. But I guess that depends on which end of that stick you happen to be on, don't you think?



Ok, whatever searcher. You've got this men hate women feminist thing going on, so what am I going to say? I know - Jesus wants you, man or woman. That's about all I can say to you. If you want to get so hung up on the fact that a priest has to be a man, rather than Jesus' love for you, go for it.

Searcher, if I may...

Pashley, I think you tried the wrong link. Go to:
http://www.witchvox.com/basics/wfaq.html

That's the one she was talking about.

MC and Searcher,

You know that I've gotten a wee bit of education from you guys regarding witchcraft in the past, but do you know what doesn't add up about it in my head? You say that what keeps you from casting evil or harmful spells or from doing the wrong thing basically, is the notion of karma, in that it will come back to you compounded. But the fatal flaw in that theory to me is that in order to ensure that you did not adversely affect society or yourself or the universe or whatever, you would HAVE to have total and complete knowledge of truth. Which I know first hand, only God has. I mean, it seems that all of this power is attributed to and manipulated by a human being who is imperfect and makes mistakes more often than not (and I'm assuming that you are human like ME right?). See, that sounds dangerous to me. Do you know what I mean? I mean to me, it sounds like what you do is to replace God's will with your own will. It's called humanism, and it's self-worship. Is that right?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited June 07, 2000).]

Lori,

In a sense, you are right. It can be very dangerous. This is a reason that a lot of pagans aren't witches, they don't care to take that responsibility on themselves.

But, there are ways around it. The easiest thing to do is include a disclaimer to your spell: "If it harm none...". Kind of like a kill loop in a program that terminates it under certain circumstances. And since that is your sincere wish, it is just as much a part of the spell as the request for action.

Spells are definitely nothing to take lightly. I'm sorry if I gave that impression, because that's not the case at all. Before doing any kind of spell, a responsible witch will meditate, pray, and try to divine (like with rune stones or tarot cards or any number of methods) what action is the proper action to take. This gives the Gods plenty of time to shake a warning finger at us and warn us off of a potentially dangerous situation.

It is also considered highly unethical and even dangerous to perform any kind of spell that will affect or manipulate another person without that persons SPECIFIC request that you do so. A spell done on another person without their permission is a negative thing, and karma will bite you for it. All results of the spell are YOUR responsibility.

I personally have only cast 2 or 3 spells, a couple on myself for personal improvement, and one binding spell to try to protect a family member from an abusive situation. The binding spell scared me a bit, because that IS casting against another person without their will. I looked at the situation carefully and finally decided I had to take the risk. I made the spell as gentle and non-invasive as possible, with lots of restrictions on it. It would only function if the target of the spell was seeking to harm another person, then it would only cause hesitation, bolster his self-control, and bring rememberances of his love for the abusee. Maybe my spell helped, maybe not, but the abusive person is now enrolled in several "anger management" type programs, is seeing a counceller, and seems to be doing quite well gaining self-control - he has not raised a hand in anger since that day. Granted, it's only been 3 or 4 months so far, so I guess time will tell.

"I mean to me, it sounds like what you do is to replace God's will with your own will. It's called humanism, and it's self-worship. Is that right?"

I don't think that's exactly what it is. I mean, do you think you're replacing God's will each time you strike a match? I believe the Gods gave us this power for a reason - to use it for our benefit, to help eachother out, to make life a little easier... I wouldn't call it self-worship either. One thing spellcasting brings to the fore is how small you really are. At least for me. I know there are a lot of people out there that call themselves "witches" and try to use that to control other people, but these people are to real witches what those crazy bible-thumping, gay-bashing, abortion doctor murdering people are to real Christians. Know what I mean?

Lori--

But the fatal flaw in that theory to me is that in order to ensure that you did not adversely affect society or yourself or the universe or whatever, you would HAVE to have total and complete knowledge of truth.

The fatal flaw is one that most witches gnaw themselves raw over. The theoretic possibilities of attempting to do Good include the Possible Evil Results. Much of the Threefold Law (my chosen interpretation of karmic activity) revolves around nonliteral interpretations. For instance:

* If I were waerloga, and chose to actually hurt someone with my spells, and, say, believed myself to have caused a fire, I would not expect a cosmic retribution of Threefold harm from fire. Rather, I am possessed in this circumstance by my narrow focus (counterproductive), am undermining my community through a form of arson, and bearing the weight of protecting myself against the ramifications of what I do, be they moral, legal (though that would be difficult to demonstrate), or otherwise.

Starhawk, in The Spiral Dance, applied the real-world scenario of shoplifting, which creates guilt in the theif, distrust in the community in which the theif exists, and has the tangible effect, in the long run, of inciting prices to rise.

It isn't just what a witch does, but why they do it. Given that the Craft bears several separate, subjective theologies, there are many perspectives which arise when considering psychic/magick action.

The effect of considering these perspectives is that much of our actions will begin to appear to contain inherent harm, the "necessary evils" of living in society. The real trick is transcending those inherent evils. What happens, then, is that educated witches generally hesitate before tossing spells about like flashpaper butterflies.

See, that sounds dangerous to me.

Sure. Actually, it can be. One of the reasons I've departed from my more active association with the Craft was that I was having difficulty separating the real from the poseur, which I generally describe as a symptom of youth. There are grander philosophical justifications that say I've never left at all, but so do they advise that I've never left the house of Christ, either.

I wouldn't call it a replacement of God's will. Rather, I would assert it to be the manifestation of "God's trust", or of that "free will" aspect that I have such a hard time getting my head around in relation to some forms of religion. I actually consider the Craft's manifestation more liberating than that of Christianity (chosen due to my familiarity, and for no other reason). Whereas my Lutheran and Catholic preachers and instructors saw responsibility to God the Abstract, the Craft taught me that the responsibility to the Goddess both manifested and reciprocated itself within me. I can describe my interactions with God through prayer, and hope that my sentiments are familiar enough to communicate, but it should suffice to repeat the groveling aspect as a discouraging factor. With the Goddess, it's more like having a glass of wine with my mother when it comes to instruction. She can only show me what life has taught, and hope I can do the addition. From that aspect, life becomes a little bit of an experiment; one must seek the true answer, but also bear in mind that one must not trample the tulips to get to the roses.

Perhaps a greedy condensation of it is: How does this act reflect back to me? My best intentions can incite a chain of events which will be detrimental to me directly or by proxy. Thus, viewing the possibilities of karmic philosophy, witches often temper their conduct with such considerations. Essentially, one assumes that such harms will, by proxy of society, eventually return to the creators of such harms. It's still doing solely what's best for the self, but it takes a broader view of the factors considered.

But that's about what I can offer. I can only hope that, as relates self-worship and humanism that A) I have managed to demonstrate how these ideas are not, or B) demonstrate that the inherent aspects of humanism and self-worship interpreted reflect a common human process that is not divorced from the god-force. Because it may not look like self-worship from inside, and the reasons why not, hopefully, should be enough to justify the act. Perhaps a greater degree of Trust in the self? I think I get your use of "self-worship", but I'm also compelled to guard against the fallacy of such an assumption. ;)

Truly, though, 'tis nice to see your name back 'round here. I'm aware this was pointed at Moon and Searcher (sorry to usurp ...), but never let me say that you don't ask fair questions from time to time.

Let me know when I stopped making sense ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Ok, now that's some food for thought (munch, munch). The only time you don't make sense to me Tiassa, is when it comes to some of your vocabulary. Which you can take that as a complement; you make me use my dag gone dictionary for crying out loud.

Sooooo, it seems based upon what you guys have explained, that spells in paganism are virtually the same thing as prayers in Christianity. I mean, I struggle a lot sometimes when in prayer because I find myself trying to influence God's will myself. Should I ask for something specific to happen? Well, what if I'm wrong about what should happen? I'm usually wrong you know? So then I feel inclined to just share my feelings with Christ, and my troubles, concerns, and intent, and then let Him decide how to handle it within His own will. But then in the Bible, it doesn't seem to condemn asking for specific things of God. It says that whatever you ask in Jesus' name shall be given unto you. Is that dangerous too? It seems that in both cases, it always boils down to our intent.

Ok then, how about the definition of good vs evil? What about the concept of sin and what it means? How is this addressed within wicca? I get the idea that it's something along the lines of..."as long as no one gets hurt, it's good". Is that true? So, does this definition have it's basis in intent? What if the intent is selfish? Like my favorite all time prayer..."Oh God, please give me a Mercedes." What about that?


------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited June 07, 2000).]

Lori--

Since I've spent half my working morning lurking about Exosci, if I'm brief, it is because time dictates. (Me? Brief? Ha! ;) )

The only thing I'll note about spell/prayer is that I'm happy you express it as you did. As a note of advice, it is not recommended to advise Oxford-graduate Jesuit-dropouts (who, by rule of the Order, shouldn't be teaching at the school, anyway, but that's beside the point) that spells and prayers are rhytmically similar, as well as in their focus and often in their effect.

As a side note, the Institute for Noetic Studies did report last year on the results of "distant healing" surveys, in which prayer and spell are almost identical in practice.

I mean, I struggle a lot sometimes when in prayer because I find myself trying to influence God's will myself. Should I ask for something specific to happen? Well, what if I'm wrong about what should happen? I'm usually wrong you know? So then I feel inclined to just share my feelings with Christ, and my troubles, concerns, and intent, and then let Him decide how to handle it within His own will. But then in the Bible, it doesn't seem to condemn asking for specific things of God.

If I might be self-righteous, I believe these are the kinds of questions that any proper witch should undertake before a casting. It is theoretically possible to pray/cast for money, with the full intent of doing some sense of good in the world and, by proxy of magick, kill your rich Uncle Fester, as such.

Good and evil, though, are a tough issue. On the one hand, it's left to the witch to decide. However, there isn't much official canon pointing the witch toward proper methods of measurement. On the whole, it means that one must be as spiritually careful when casting spells as we'd like to imagine a hunter to be technically careful while he's shooting. Good seems to reflect the principles of The Dance: Life, Joy, Rhythm, Harmony, and other such abstractions. Good seems to reflect the things commonly aspired to by most, if not all humans: security, happiness, peace, knowledge, human perpetuity in the Universe. Evil seems to reflect, well, not chaos, per se, but chaos with a reason. Americans in general have driven their societal aspirations so far into the ground that at least twice in my lifetime, the culture has just shrugged, said, "OK, if that's how we're playing," and gone forth without a care as to whether or not the choice was the right one. A good issue, I think, would be the form of "capitalism" to which a witch subscribes, if Capitalist. On the one hand, there is that bloodthirsty, screw-or-be-screwed American mentality that says, "Profit now, question later", which has resulted in poor nuclear containment, poor toxic waste disposal, poor justice, poor education ... need I continue the lament portion? To the other is the idea that by taking this financial hit, one might be contributing to conditions that favor their position in the future. e.g.--Certainly, it's a pain to keep paying more and more taxes, but why do my fellow Washington voters choose to "rebel" by cutting funding to the schools while building more sports arenas, prisons, and so forth? Myself, I vote to raise my own taxes when appropriate, and expect the implied or promised result.

By and large, I think a formula including both intent and result should determine the moral propriety of an action, or to classify that act as a sin. If I might dredge up our favorite Inquisitors ... hey, their intent was allegedly mighty good, but that doesn't mean they're not burning in whatever Hell their God has chosen for them. On the other hand, "immorality", as socially defined (even with Biblical backing) can often lead to a better result. (The forum is, generally, aware of how I feel about the War on Drugs; suffice to say here that I think the stoners who "protest" every day with their continued support of the marijuana black market are actually the moral ones if we look specifically at the key players in the War. More on that if we absolutely must, but I'd rather wait for a better time.)

My own favorite selfish prayer is Silverstein's "Prayer of the Selfish Child":

Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
If I should die before I wake,
I pray the Lord my toys to break,
So none of the other kids can use 'em.

To be direct, it is largely "if nobody gets hurt" ... Again, intent as well as effect. I recall that when I was 14, I damn near got my ass kicked in when I opened a door for a girl and accidentally (I swear this one was an accident ;) ) smacked her gently in the butt. My intent was kind, but the act itself upset her badly as a harassment issue for a number of weeks. To the other, I recall that when I was 17, I said, "Sure," to a question I shouldn't have because I wanted to get laid. If I'm blowing my horn here, I'm sorry, but that ill intent resulted in circumstances that allowed me to do something (heaven knows I don't know exactly what) that resulted in this person's assessment that I had saved her life in a context tenuously relevant to my getting laid.

Often, you'll hear a witch say that the only good to come from a particular set of circumstances is that they've learned to not repeat the mistaken sequence. Whatever they've learned usually has to do with the relationship between intent and effect. But not always. We're all human on this planet, as such, so I can't possibly speak for 99% of anything, as such. But I do feel that these are the prevailing trends among the Craft. Even among the witches I didn't gravitate to for whatever personal or ideological reasons, it seemed our big differences were the starting points. We often executed similar formulae, but the factors involved being unique, any given principle might reflect well in the other's result, while my own result is disappointing or even negative.

As such, so much for brief. But I do have to fly.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa,

Well honey, let's just fire one up in the name of morality ok? *toke, toke* LOL!

And damn son, you must be really, really, really good to have saved someone's life with it!!!! Actually, I'm teasing you know. ;) I can actually relate to her sentiments in a way. Maybe not to the extreme that she indicated, but recently, due to my cynicism from past sexual relationships, and depression and whatnot, I was kind of in the same place. Saying no more, I'm done, I'm gonna be a nun now. Claiming to myself that there IS NO man on this earth who would ever have the right intentions towards me in a relationship, and would love me for me, and not my boobies, or my money, or whatever they could get out of me. I prayed to God. I told Him about my awful cynicism. And I asked Him for something specific this time. I asked Him for a man who would love me with the right intentions. One that loved God, and would love me, for who I am, not what he could get. I even asked Him to just drop the dude on my doorstep for me, since I did not, and do not, in any capacity, trust my own judgement in these matters at all.

So ok, in a matter of a FEW DAYS, the crew showed up to put a new roof on my house.

My new honey-bun (see the lust vs love post in the "homo" thread) is one of the two brothers that owns the roofing company.

Let's put it this way....if you were to hand me a piece of paper and a pen, and instruct me to describe "the perfect man for me", including ALL relevant aspects such as spirituality, emotionality, physicality, sexuality, morals, values, everything, I would end up handing you a detailed point by point description of my new honey-bun. Interesting huh?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited June 07, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited June 07, 2000).]

Lori--

Well, you know me ... I'm the Fountain of Life. ;)

If I might pull an ageism and dispense general advice to any young men who have not engaged in their first sexual intercourse; if I might further restrict this to heterosexual intercourse: When a girl/woman asks, "But do you really want to deal with all my problems?" suck up your cajones and say no. I said yes, got the girl, eventually got laid, and spent much of the following two years in the trenches of a nasty domestic dispute that incited several suicide attempts.

Truth be told, I'm quite sure I was part of the problem. Truth be told, I'm glad I got to go through what I did. But if getting laid is one's primary purpose in accepting anomalous "problems", keep shopping.

As a theological curiosity, I called it a "Devil's gift" when I was younger. After all, I wanted the girl and I got her, and all that came with.

So, even if we did assume that, as our more dramatic conversations had asserted, some action of mine did, at some point during that process, prevent this girl from forfeiting her life, I still wonder how that chain of events would have gone had I been thinking more clearly. (Clearly, that is, relative to my definition of normalcy or reality at the time. As a personal routine, I jump at the invitation to stitch together a psyche, but such work should never be undertaken for such a lustful currency.

As a personal note to you, Lori, who is perhaps most familiar of all Exosci's posters with my scathing assessment of the Churches during this part of my life, that I still find it remarkably interesting that the church-appointed powers-that-were at my high school generally intervened only to make sure I was still standing. I never got that, but at the time and over the passing years, I've always appreciated that latitude they gave me to miss classes, kiss openly in the halls--whatever it took. It was, I believe, their assessment that this was one they didn't want to handle, for whatever reasons. Though you'll hear me attribute that "Christian dullardness" that I so often rant about in our conversations, I wanted to note that it shouldn't be said that they never did anything for me. :D

So I'm burying the relevance of the thread .... apologies around. :)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Lori,

Yes! You hit that right on the head, spells & prayers are very much alike.

I should point out that witches do pray too, but I think in most cases (just my own observation) most of the prayers are for guidance, whereas spells are for specific actions & results. But, as I also said, a lot of pagans and some witches even do not perform spells at all. A comment I have heard more than once is something like "The longer I am a witch, the less often I cast spells".

"Ok then, how about the definition of good vs evil? What about the concept of sin and what it means? How is this addressed within wicca? I