Just stop the useless complaining. by LostInTheVerse

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Just stop the useless complaining.

POSTED BY: LOSTINTHEVERSE
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 18:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16902
PAGE 4 of 4

Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As usual, I just have some notes in the margins to contribute.

I read an SF book by LeGuinn with a clever rhyme, unfortunately, I can only remember two lines: Time is a manacle, Time is tyrannical ...
Not being a physicist or even a well-versed amateur I just want to contribute my notion of time: time happens when space expands by whatever means, while energy does not. Thus things 'run down' giving processes direction and creating a clock. (Or hey, it may just be an effect of our perceptions of bulk properties of a certain scale.)

For the record, my background is biology and medical topics, and chemistry, in that order.

Getting back to religion, SignyM, the 'supertitious pigeon' was a part of my basic psychology class. What it was was a pigeon in a cage where a tasty pellet (reward) would drop in at random. Whatever the pigeon was doing at the time - ruffling its feathers, turning in a circle, pecking the floor etc - the pigeon would then repeat at intervals. Then at some other time another pellet would plop in, and whatever the pigeon was doing at THAT time it would repeat in sequence with the first action. So over time, the pigeon would develop elaborate rituals that it would repeat over and over, to earn what was an essentially random reward.

Scary when one extends that to the human condition.

I've read recently that unexpected rewards are MUCH more reinforcing than planned ones, and yes, it's all linked to dopamine (somewhow)... And when you look at religion, it's not so much that you pray really hard and get something, it's that you pray and pray and pray and pray and ... something good occasionally happens and you get that random reward. So you end up praying even more, which makes it that much more likely some random good will happen after praying. It hadn't occurred to me until you brought that up. And maybe that's why people cling to religion when there is science, technology, government, or ANY reliable solution to a problem. The drawback IS the reliability, it is just so much less rewarding than that random event, because it is inextricably so much less useflul. Hmmm, maybe that's how people can be deprogrammed from cults. Find a medicine that boosts dopamine ... (sublinguial histamine is one) ... let me think on that.

SigmaNunki, let me ask you - did I drive Tragic away when I asked for a repeat of that one word I couldn't figure out? It seems like ever since, Tragic got curt, snide, cryptic and then - went away. If I did, I'm sorry. It was not at all what I wanted to do. I really wanted input from that direction.

Religion and culture are so enmeshed with each other. The burkha, like the loya jirga, are not actually Muslim inventions, they are tribal ones. And Christianity of the post-Luther kind with its emphasis on being materially blessed, comes from a culture of merchantalism and capitalism, not from the new testament of following THE Lord and leaving everything else. And Catholicism was certainly reinvented around 350AD or thereabouts into a huge officialdom.

I think religion, by its reference to the supernatural, can be used as the mega-enforcer for what are otherwise simply existing social strictures, historical hierarchies, economic systems etc. If you don't obey these priests, the sun won't return; or, you'll lose the gods' favor AND the war; if you don't sacrifice the harvest will be bad, disease will sweep your flocks etc. At that point I'm not sure it's possible to disentagle religion from culture, they've been merged into a functional unit. Even core religious beliefs get changed to make them more socially useful. Christianity comes to mind as the obvious recent example.

When it comes to world story, I guess I don't see as distinct a cut as either of you. To me world story is not only a history of how did all this get to be here, it is also addresses the nature of the universe, our place in it and, ultimately, what makes us who we are.

Anyway, I'm out of time. My constant refrain. I'll probably not get back for a few days. But it was nice to chat with you both.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2004 3:34 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

SigmaNunki, let me ask you - did I drive Tragic away when I asked for a repeat of that one word I couldn't figure out? It seems like ever since, Tragic got curt, snide, cryptic and then - went away. If I did, I'm sorry. It was not at all what I wanted to do. I really wanted input from that direction.

Lord no! All you did was to ask for clarity. If anything I would think that the definition that I put forth that has made him not want to be involved in this conversation anymore. After all, how can science be a religion if the defining quality of religion is the super-natural. But when I comes down to it we are still discussing the definition (which I find fun

).

But, then again, he did liken us to fundamentalists (read: insulted us). Which I find funny because latter in the post he thanked us for keeping it civil, which is contradictory to the mentioned comment.

In the end, I would guess that he had found a definition that fit his view of science and ignored the massive number of definition that contradicted this. When confronted with this fact he had two choices. Namely, realize the mistake or ignore it and continue on. I would think that the latter is his choice since it has been some time and still silence. Especially since I've seen him post in other threads here. In general, people don't like to admit "defeat," temporary or otherwise.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

If you don't obey these priests, the sun won't return; or, you'll lose the gods' favor AND the war; if you don't sacrifice the harvest will be bad, disease will sweep your flocks etc.

This is an excellent desciption of Western religions, but Eastern ones don't really follow this pattern. For them, I think, it was society that did that. Perhaps if society didn't produce this effect religion would've taken up the cause.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

At that point I'm not sure it's possible to disentagle religion from culture, they've been merged into a functional unit. Even core religious beliefs get changed to make them more socially useful. Christianity comes to mind as the obvious recent example.

True every religion has changed to suit it's current enviornment. Buddhism is another excellent example when it went from India through Asia.

But I do think that religion can be disentangled from culture. I see the beginnings of it now with the progress of society from a religous base to a secular one. It will always be involved at some level, but for society as a whole, religions dominance is nearing its end, IMO.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

When it comes to world story, I guess I don't see as distinct a cut as either of you. To me world story is not only a history of how did all this get to be here, it is also addresses the nature of the universe, our place in it and, ultimately, what makes us who we are.

It is a large grey area. I remove it from the definition of religion because some have it, some don't, and "world story" can be interpreted as anything. 'Tis a very ambiguous term.

And as usual, you guys have given me some things to think about

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2004 3:46 PM

HKCAVALIER

Man, you guys have been busy! I'm afraid this post of mine is gonna be quite long, but I'll try to keep it interesting.

Hey everybody, I'll do what I can to speak on behalf of us religious people here. I don't know that a lot of other religious people would consider me to be one of them, but some of the things our dear friend SignyM has put forward have irked me at such a "primitive" level that I have to speak (woo-hoo! I get to disagree with Signy! Next thing you know I'll be contesting one of Rue's sources

).

I'm not a big authority on traditional Native American shamanism or family traditional witchcraft (when I do read so-called "scholarly" texts on these subjects I mostly find a lot of frivolous, misinformed b.s.--Gerald Gardner, I'm looking at you--and no guide/mentor/teacher has ever directed me to read a book on the subject). Not even sure they would qualify as "religions" to a lot of folks, but I have studied and practiced within these traditions for most of my life. Both of these traditions are orally transmitted in practice, pre-literate in their origins and animistic at their core, so what would seem to be the essential trappings of religious hierarchy and dogma have very little to do with what I've practiced.

Also, shamanism and witchcraft have a decidedly practical side (you might be more comfortable calling them "healing arts" than "religions), whereas the "great religions" as they are apparently experienced by the vast majority of humans seem to be largely devotional, aesthetic and conciliatory. The great religions of the world present God as something huge and dangerous to life which we puny humans need to please, if we are to prosper--hence the term "god-fearing." Most religions enact a "child/parent" relationship between us and the divine with all that relationship's attendant neuroses and distortion intact. But what happens when our spiritual selves mature? Do we all just become atheists? For a lot of people it is next to impossible really to befriend their parents in an adult and intimate way, but does that mean it never happens?

Witchcraft and shamanism, as I know them, at all times emphasize perception over dogma. The principles of witchcraft and shamanism are readily available to experience but not necessarily verifiable and repeatable. Science is dedicated to taking things apart in order to understand them, but many things in this world cease to be when dismembered. I once read that western physics concerns itself with describing reality by breaking it apart into smaller and smaller pieces while eastern physics concerns itself with describing reality by meditating on its origin, nature and purpose.

Because witchcraft is a practical discipline, much of what constitutes "ritual practice" is investigative in nature. You do what works. Specific rituals in witchcraft have specific real world purposes and so if they don't succeed, you try something else. And just to be clear here, witchcraft, like western science, is more efficacious in certain areas than in others. If I get in a car wreck, I'm going to the ER. But if I want to prevent that car wreck in the first place, I'm gonna continue my study of the origin, nature and purpose of car wrecks.

Quote:
Code of behavior

Here's a thing. It is generally understood that the wiccan rede, "An it harm none, do what thou wilt" is a code of conduct. You know, live and let live. But as I have been taught (and have yet to find any corroboration in books, so feel free to dismiss my "findings"), the rede refers more accurately to a principle of the living universe that nothing occurs without consent. It's basically saying that it is impossible to harm others at the level of soul, because all souls collaborate on reality. What this means is that at the fundamental level of truth, vengeance and harm are not possible. They are illusions. The rede is included in ritual as a clearing of the mind of the illusions of force and error to better align the mind with the realities of consent and purpose. This makes the ritual more efficient and opens the practitioner's mind to see the real outcome of the spell.

Part of me thinks I must be crazy to bring this kind of stuff up online because cyberspace is a place where illusion is king (and at times judge, jury and executioner), and truth is something you cut and paste over and over until those who disagree with you give up and/or shut off their computers. People can object to what I'm saying and sight extensive evidence of the most vicious acts of cruelty (as could I), but all I'm saying is that through my extensive study and practice I have learned that if I truly intend to bring my will to bare upon the universe I have an easier time of it when I let go of all vengeance and any desire to participate in the punishment/reward dramas of others.

People speak of selling their souls, for instance, but the wicca I know (untainted by vestigial Christian dogma) and shamanism say this is not possible. There's an Indian joke I know that tells of how the Iroquois tricked the whitemen into giving them a great deal of gold and goods for nothing. Well, they sold the whitemen Manhattan Island. Get it? The whitemen were too dumb and greedy to realize that you can't own land. European culture of course is founded on the institution of land ownership, but to the Native American mind such ownership is illusory if not pathological: a short-lived fantasy that whitemen hold in place with guns and intimidation. Nothing that you hold with guns and intimidation is true or lasting, or very healthy--if it were, you wouldn't need the damn guns!

Quote:
Afterlife

Witchcraft seems to have the least of this of any religion I've observed. One dies and reappears somewhere else on the grid. Period. The afterlife then, is just another life. Death is just one part of a grand swirling experience of existence. Reincarnation has been observed by investigators worldwide and documented. One more versed in Buddhist thought could prolly make similar claims, but Buddhism has often been called a "philosophy" by westerners, which would place it outside the scope of this discussion.

Quote:
World story IMO this could and should be replaced by science because it is the same motivation, but science has a more consistent and useful story.

Glory be! Beware of consistency and usefulness for their own sake! Remember, Hitler made the trains run on time! If all investigation into the world were based upon the western scientific model, how the heck would you hold in mind the limits of western science? Science has done some lovely things over the centuries but I don't know that science is going to solve the really, really big problems like hunger and hate and greed. Hey, Mr Scientist, my heart is broken, can you fix it?

Quote:
Controlling larger forces- Before science, it was the ONLY way people could address things like disease, drought, infertility, sickness, persistent bad luck etc. Even today you'll find people who think that if they get ENOUGH people to pray for someone's child God will act like a somewhat negligent parent who'll respond when the crying gets loud enough. (I could go into the psychology of that, but that's a whole 'nother discussion!) IMO, this function could, and should, be replaced by modern technology because it has the same motivation.

So some of the functions lumped in with religion are more properly "ethics" or "primitive science/ primitive technology" and possibly even "primitive social engineering".

Owch! Watch it with the adjectives, will ya? PRIMITIVE, PRIMITIVE, PRIMITIVE. Don't be surprised that nobody wants to talk to you when you keep calling them primitive! With that one word, you ghettoize all non-western thought! Western medicine, for instance, can only go so far. Acupuncture and herbalism help people in ways western science cannot codify or comprehend.

All orthodoxies claim that if you can prove them wrong they will listen to you, but in practice, by defining the area of contention they can effectively exclude even the most sensible heresies. Calling the people you disagree with "primitive" is a way of excluding people from the discussion. And what's most deranging is that you don't even realize you're doing it!

Quote:
All of that is to say that I agree that the ESSENTIAL aspect of religion is a belief in the supernatural. ANY RELIGIOUS PPL DISAGREE?? Enquiring minds want to know!

Okay, I'm almost done. I offer the following information as an experiment: I experience clairvoyance, ghost phenomena, fairies, non-human consciousness, precognition, forces and presences which I can best describe as "God" or "the angelic." I've seen at least one thing I would term a "demon." All of these at one time or another have been witnessed by others (and no, we weren't doing drugs). All of these things are sober, perplexing experiences of mine. I don't believe in any of them, anymore than you believe in gravity. So, by strict definition they are no more "supernatural" than electricity or atoms.

I feel genuinely sorry for the self-described Christian who sees God as supernatural--he's just playing into the atheist's hands! It doesn't mean that he has no real experience of God (although, I'd have to say a lot of Christians really don't seem to). It doesn't mean that if he thought about it critically for a moment, he couldn't see that God is not a supernatural being at all. Such Christians are just a little muddled. Confused. And churches have never been great proponents of critical thought. Beyond that though, you know, religious experience tends to transcend language to a lesser or greater degree which further puts him at a disadvantage over the scientist.

It seems to me that when you define religion as a belief in the supernatural, you've created a condescending, circular argument. You might as well define religion as a belief in b.s. But wouldn't it be better if you used a term that science doesn't instinctually scoff at? Is there such a term?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 4:53 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF RELIGIOUS PPL WOULD JOIN IN AND LET ADD THEIR VIEWS OF RELIGION. (Otherwise y'all get stuck with me trying to explain your beliefs! )

Five days ago this was a hot thread. Since my last post...nothing (I thought my days of thread slaying were over

). Did I say something wrong? Usually, I chalk it up to people's lives taking precedent, but Signy & Rue & Sigma have all been posting (Signy quite a lot). You'll talk to Geezer, but you won't talk to me.

Does that seem right to you?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 5:03 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Thanks for joining HK. My time here is limited, so my end of a discussion tends to be quite late. And sometimes it's just easier to post a quick remark to someone who's WAY out there, but it takes me a LOT longer for a longer, thoughtful discussion.

When I said I was indifferent to religion I meant REALLY indifferent.

Mostly my experience with people who 'have religion' (and I admit it's a narrow selection of Mormons, JW's, and Born-Agains) is that they are closed-minded, self-righteous, intolerant, and able to rationalize all sorts of contradictions in order to maintain their self-selection as a special (superior) person. However, in my life I have met three people - two Catholics from the 'old-country' and one southern African-American Baptist - in whom religion seemed to enhance their dignity, tolerance, and integrity (though I have to say they were all intelligent and savvy people, though not necessarily educated, who survived extremely tough circumstances, and who also seemed to naturally be broad thinkers). So my observation is that religion works OK for some people.

BTW I was raised Roman Catholic but I guess it took only enough for me to find hypocrites among the vilest scum around. I do consider myself an ethical person. And if I have a core belief, it is the belief of 'just enough'. If that were to be adopted, I think it would preserve what's left of our planet, and create security between people and peace of mind in individuals. I've also done a bit of reading, enough to know I like the Tao and the Gospel of Thomas as sources of insight.

In terms of the saying that was brought up that Signy first responded to in another thread, 'there are no atheists in a foxhole' in my hospital incarnations, I have seen hundreds (literally) of people die. I've stayed in numerous ICUs while people I loved struggled with death, and while some lost.

Despite that, I don't personally find the need for, or use of, formal religion. What does religion do for those who seek it? I'm curious. I hope this question doesn't offend you and I truly hope you can explain it to me. Thanks ahead of time. Rue

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:43 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sorry HK- I post where my anger leads me!

Been busy too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:27 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Five days ago this was a hot thread. Since my last post...nothing (I thought my days of thread slaying were over). Did I say something wrong? Usually, I chalk it up to people's lives taking precedent, but Signy & Rue & Sigma have all been posting (Signy quite a lot). You'll talk to Geezer, but you won't talk to me. Does that seem right to you?

I've been going through some rather involving personal struggles over the weekend, and it still continues. I'm over that major hump of it but still have some soul searching to do to find out... well, what I'm going to do. Plus, I've also been involved in abstract algebra and coding theory (test tommorow).

To be sure, I definitly will answer your post. In fact, it's pained me that I couldn't respond. So, many things to say

For now, I must sleep. Good night all

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:43 PM

HKCAVALIER

Ah, all is mended. I just kinda put myself out there a little in that last post and, you know, when you put yourself out there and nobody comes back at you, you can make up some pretty innersting explainations.

Sigma, goodnight.

Signy, I've noticed that about you.

Sometimes I marvel at your stamina for the debate.

Rue, I've known people whom I would concider seekers, who might indeed seek religion. I sorta came by mine by the way of least resistance. I've had dealings with the paranormal all my life. That stuff saught me out. Now, according to the catholics I was dealing with the Adversary, and according to ordinary scientistic consensus I was crazy. Then I met some nice witches and according to them I was simply gifted. Of the three, I liked that last one the best.

I'm put in mind of the latin root of the word religion: religare or something, which means to re-link up or re-connect to the source; to reconnect with our origins. For me it means carrying a conscious awareness of the interconnectedness of all that is, has been, and ever will be. I might say that religion is communion with the eternal part of myself. Mostly, I want to know what's going on and how I fit in. My religious experience is the sum of all my vocabulary for who I really am, if that makes sense.

Anyway, more later, my roommate just announced that she's engaged to be married and it's way past my bedtime.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hello HK !
I'm interested in whatever else you have to say. I'm also curious about some of your experiences (if you feel confident enough to post them here.) I think when it comes to anything out of the ordinary, I must be worse than zero - I'm like an event killer. I've only had two or maybe three experiences I couldn't explain. So I'm avid to find out about what they are like for people who actually have them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 11:48 AM

SIGMANUNKI

I think that the test went well

HKCavalier, I'm about to say things below. If they are wrong to your knowledge/training please let me know.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

...
when I do read so-called "scholarly" texts on these subjects I mostly find a lot of frivolous, misinformed b.s.--Gerald Gardner, I'm looking at you--and no guide/mentor/teacher has ever directed me to read a book on the subject
...

My readings on the topic of witchcraft started with Gerina Dunsich's "The Wicca Spellbook." I found it interesting

so I continued.

But, when it comes to the ones I found most informative and accepting of the non-static and non-uniform believes in this religion, it was Scott Cunningham's works, "Wicca: A Guide For The Solitary Practitioner" and "Living Wicca: A Further Guild For The Solitary Practitioner." He's also done a lot of other work, including the medicinal and magical properties of herbs, etc.

Also, I have found on the net *many* people recommend, and it has been in most bibliographies that I've seen is "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It is subtitled "The Foundation Book of Western Occultism." It was written around 1500 CE and draws on many different religions. From angelic languages to the magic of numbers to the Kabbalah. I've only had the time to read the first ~100 pages as it's a *heavy* read. It's from Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series if you're interested.

At any rate, some things you may want to check out next time your in a bookstore.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Also, shamanism and witchcraft have a decidedly practical side (you might be more comfortable calling them "healing arts" than "religions), whereas the "great religions" as they are apparently experienced by the vast majority of humans seem to be largely devotional, aesthetic and conciliatory.
...

True about the western religions, but the eastern ones are far more flexible. For instance, it is common place for some to be born a Buddhist, live as a Confusist and have a Shinto funeral in Japan.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

...
But what happens when our spiritual selves mature? Do we all just become atheists? For a lot of people it is next to impossible really to befriend their parents in an adult and intimate way, but does that mean it never happens?

I don't necessarily think that when we mature spiritually we become atheists.

For me, it's more of, I don't exactly buy the "Big invisible guy in the sky conjecture." Just seems silly to me. Does this mean that I explicitly say that it isn't true? Of course not, it definitly could be, but IMO, blind faith is no way to proceed. This is what my brain tells me.

When it comes to what I feel, that is a different story. I believe that we are clearly missing something. That there is far more out there than can be explained now. Science doesn't include human intuition. It's one of its limiting factors.

As soon as I started reading about Wicca I felt this warm and fuzzy feeling of belonging. It's something about caring about the world and people around me that I find appealing

It's something about walking the talk (unlike most Christians of any branch), living a way and being true to yourself.

At the same time though, I don't consider myself a Wiccan. But, (again) at the same time, my beliefs do tend in that direction.

When it comes to the question, "Is there a god?" Or "Is there a god and goddess?" etc. Well, I don't like those questions. I prefer to avoid them as they inevitable lead to blind faith which always sends a shiver up my spine. To many wars have been fought because of that.

When it comes to the question of, "Can we ever befreind our parents?" I think that that is a very personal and specific question. It has to do with the foundation of that relationship and if the people are willing. It takes two to be friends.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

...
I once read that western physics concerns itself with describing reality by breaking it apart into smaller and smaller pieces while eastern physics concerns itself with describing reality by meditating on its origin, nature and purpose.
...

I've never heard this. Do you remember where you read it?

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Because witchcraft is a practical discipline, much of what constitutes "ritual practice" is investigative in nature.

Prayer can be defined as communication with the divine. With this definition it could be said that the Wiccan spells are equivilant to Christian prayer as they both are communication with the divine. Yes/No?

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

...
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt"
...
the rede refers more accurately to a principle of the living universe that nothing occurs without consent. It's basically saying that it is impossible to harm others at the level of soul, because all souls collaborate on reality.
...

Hm, I've never seen it like that. Well, exactly like that save two words.
"
An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will
"
I just understood it as the "law" of Wicca. Don't do any harm to anyone nor yourself. Other than that, do whatever you want.

And if you do harm, then the rule of three comes into play. Which, since it's rather unpleasant (if bad things are afoot), people will be detered from doing it. But, it's also a reward for those that do good.

Basically, like a parents punishment/reward model to encourage people to do good and deter them to do bad.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

People speak of selling their souls, for instance, but the wicca I know (untainted by vestigial Christian dogma) and shamanism say this is not possible.

The Wicca(s) I know of pretty much all include reincarnation as part of there belief (Yes/No?). So, in this model, how could one sell a soul?

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:
Afterlife

Witchcraft seems to have the least of this of any religion I've observed. One dies and reappears somewhere else on the grid. Period.
...

The Wicca that I know, this process ends at some point. From what I learned, each life is like spiritual training and when the spirit is mature it will be able to end the cycle and live amongst the goddess and god in harmony.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Glory be! Beware of consistency and usefulness for their own sake! Remember, Hitler made the trains run on time! If all investigation into the world were based upon the western scientific model, how the heck would you hold in mind the limits of western science? Science has done some lovely things over the centuries but I don't know that science is going to solve the really, really big problems like hunger and hate and greed. Hey, Mr Scientist, my heart is broken, can you fix it?

All very good points

But the last one there about the broken heart is rather an orange to the apples presented before it. Science could (and I think will) solve the problem of hunger. Only time and maturity of the human race will solve the hate and greed problem.

The heart problem, IMO, can't be solved. It is built into us to care and to feel pain when we have loss. It is a lesson and enables us to have compasion. To not have pain is to lose the any potential benifit. It's a kind of bitter sweet thing about us.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Controlling larger forces
...
Even today you'll find people who think that if they get ENOUGH people to pray for someone's child God will act like a somewhat negligent parent who'll respond when the crying gets loud enough. (I could go into the psychology of that, but that's a whole 'nother discussion!)
...

There are still studies today that "prove" that this helps. Everyone outside of the studies are *extremely* skeptical about them. And they should be as there are many things that are wrong with them.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Owch! Watch it with the adjectives, will ya? PRIMITIVE, PRIMITIVE, PRIMITIVE.
...

I choose to think that in this context, what is meant by primitive is more along the lines of methods employed. Of course, relative to the modern electronics and manufacturing techniques, pounding a smelly herb into a paste and smearing it on the foot (or somesuch) might be considered primitive.

But, it may just be more effective. Which it tends to be for *many* people. I as well use "primitive" techniques to stay healthy, but I'd rather use the term "Home Remedy."

Of course, Doctors are sometimes needed too

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

...
So, by strict definition they are no more "supernatural" than electricity or atoms.
...

Ok, when I say "supernatural," I mean something that may or may not be in nature that science has yet to explain.

So, when I say that the afterlife, ghosts, etc are part of the paranormal or supernatural, I'm not condeming them to not be part of nature. I'm just saying that when it comes to scientificly reproducing the phenomina, it's not possible... today. Therefore it exists outside of *known* nature.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

...
And churches have never been great proponents of critical thought.
...

LOL, the understatment of the year that nailed on the head!

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Beyond that though, you know, religious experience tends to transcend language to a lesser or greater degree which further puts him at a disadvantage over the scientist.

I don't like putting this in these terms. This will enevitably lead to a science vs religion debate which isn't really valid.

Science and religion answer different question because they investigate (though most religions don't investigate) nature in different ways for different purposes. IMO, they should just stay in there respective corners and leave one another alone.

But I do know of *many* scientists that have had religious experiences and consider them as such and don't see any conflict. There is a line that seperates science and religion that is blurred and fuzzy. It is hard to see where these things begin and end. But in the end, it's only the athesist that'll make these claims regardless of whether they are a scientist or not.

Perhaps it's just that scientists get noticed more because, well, they are scientists and there is a seeming tention between some in the religious sect and some in science.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

It seems to me that when you define religion as a belief in the supernatural, you've created a condescending, circular argument. You might as well define religion as a belief in b.s. But wouldn't it be better if you used a term that science doesn't instinctually scoff at? Is there such a term?

I don't see it as a condescending term at all. Science just hasn't been able to *prove* that ghosts and such exist yet. So, for now it is supernatural because as a whole it is *proven*.

Whether it is b.s. or not remains to be seen. There are *many* things that scientists are admittingly unable to *prove* in this area. So, the question still remains.

I would believe that you've really only met people or read things that were written by those in the science community that are athesits and have closed minds.

My wife and I for instance have both had experienees that (at least I) would describe as supernatural. We know we had them and believe them to *not* be some figment of our imagination. In fact I've had such such a number of them to go beyond skepticism.

But, at the same time, as one who is science minded, since this whole thing hasn't been *proven* to be true yet, I must accept the *possibility* that what I've experienced *isn't* what I think it is, but something else entirely.

But, it seems as though people are becoming uncomfortable discussing such things in a public forum (at least). I have a server and could set up a mailing list for those who wish a more private forum to discuss this in. If you guys are interested let me know and I'll set it up.

One last question. My wife tells me that my writting style is rather difficult to understand. She says that the only reason why she understands what I write is b/c she knows me personally. Is this true? Do you guys have a hard time understanding? Should I make an attempt to be clearer? I'd rather not be misunderstood.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:00 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I can't speak for anyone else but I read you loud and clear.

But now that makes three who have had these experiences that seem to go by me. Drat! Dang! mumbles pouts paces

PS But seriously folks. I have not even a clue to what are the kinds of things to which you are referring. And now I'm just itching with curiosity. What ARE you all talking about ???

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2004 6:34 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
HKCavalier, I'm about to say things below. If they are wrong to your knowledge/training please let me know.

Hey Sigma! Thanks for the long reply. There’s so much to talk about! ‘Course, I don't think I'm qualified to say that anything you've posted is “wrong.” That's one of the nice things about practicing a non-organized religion, there's nothing wrong about it.

But in terms of ritual practice and spellcraft I do have some experiences that contradict the standard issue “Wiccan beliefs.” Some of what passes for Wicca just seems made up or borrowed from some belief system or other. I don't think of witchcraft as a belief system. I really do think of it as a study of how the Universe really works.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, I have found on the net *many* people recommend, and it has been in most bibliographies that I've seen is "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It is subtitled "The Foundation Book of Western Occultism." It was written around 1500 CE and draws on many different religions. From angelic languages to the magic of numbers to the Kabbalah. I've only had the time to read the first ~100 pages as it's a *heavy* read. It's from Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series if you're interested.

Thanks for that. It's been, now that I think of it, over 15 years since I've cracked a book on witchcraft. I think I have read material that was based upon the "Three Books" particularly with respect to angelology, but I've certainly never looked it over directly. Thanks for the recommendation.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Prayer can be defined as communication with the divine. With this definition it could be said that the Wiccan spells are equivalent to Christian prayer as they both are communication with the divine. Yes/No?

I think for the purposes of discussion "the divine" begs all kinda questions. I think quantum physics may have just as much to say about the efficacy of prayer. Are you aware of the work of Dr. Masarua Emoto with water crystals? He found that speaking "to" the water as the crystals formed changed the form of the crystals in dramatic ways. In short: compassionate loving words produced ornate snowflake-like forms and hateful words created ugly disconnected blotches. I'm pretty sure prayer works on the same principle. I don't personally believe that a remote deity is needed or really involved, paternalistically granting our wishes from on high.

Seriously, that can’t possibly make sense to anyone. Sure, people believe it, but you just make yourself crazy trying to understand why a loving God the Father would let this innocent child die and that one live. When we buy into something so contrary to experience, it cripples our discernment. To my way of thinking, the mind (in the broadest possible meaning of the word) of the subject of the prayers along with the minds of those doing the praying are enough to effect healing. I think human will and human speech, when properly focused can influence reality profoundly. That said, I would agree that prayer could be described as the most elemental form of spellcraft.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
And if you do harm, then the rule of three comes into play. Which, since it's rather unpleasant (if bad things are afoot), people will be detered from doing it. But, it's also a reward for those that do good.

Basically, like a parents punishment/reward model to encourage people to do good and deter them to do bad.

I'm not at all surprised that you've never heard my interpretation. It's not in the books. It has been orally passed down from teacher to student. It’s pretty hard to step out of this culture we’re given, even for Wiccans and even for Wiccans who write books. Wicca is a practice that predates the current Judeo-Christian mindset by many thousands of years. Witchcraft predates all modern notions of ethics and morality. By modern human standards, our pets live astonishingly loving and ethical lives without the need of any creed or belief system or even verbal language. How can this be? All I can say is that I have worked enough magic in my life to know that the rede is not an ethic but a principle like the second law of thermodynamics. Likewise, the three-fold law.

Here’s a thing: Wicca to an actual practitioner of witchcraft is a very different thing from Wicca to someone who merely reads about it or likes the feel of it. To the latter, the three-fold law might be just what you say, a form of ethical coercion, suitable for children. But to a practitioner it’s a basic principle, like gravity. Someone born in the weightlessness of space would have no real experience of gravity. They could read about it and imagine that it was very fitting that heavenly bodies exert this force, but until they step onto a planetary surface it would just be poetry.

Voodoo practitioners I've known deal with the three-fold law in a way different from Wiccans and far less "ethical" to our westernized eyes. They acknowledge this fundamental principle of manifestation by including in their work a whole encyclopedia of "counter hexes" to deal with any unwanted backlash. When they send a curse, they simply protect themselves three times over from the backlash. It’s a lot of work, but they don’t seem to mind.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

People speak of selling their souls, for instance, but the Wicca I know (untainted by vestigial Christian dogma) and shamanism say this is not possible.

The Wicca(s) I know of pretty much all include reincarnation as part of there belief (Yes/No?). So, in this model, how could one sell a soul?

Sure Wiccans have souls. How else can we understand reincarnation? What do you call the part of you that reincarnates? Now that you have a soul, all you need to do in order to sell your soul is believe that you can. If you came to me and told me that you’d sold your soul, I’d take you very seriously. I’d know that you were suffering from a delusion, but I’d understand that such delusions can have terrible consequences. You might just be overwhelmed with Christian guilt, but you might also be a victim of possession. I’d have to examine you and see.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
The Wicca that I know, this process ends at some point. From what I learned, each life is like spiritual training and when the spirit is mature it will be able to end the cycle and live amongst the goddess and god in harmony.

Where’d you hear that? That kinda makes me scrunch up my nose, you know what I mean? I don’t want to come off combative here (I’m really enjoying the opportunity to discuss this stuff on my favorite BB in the ‘verse

) but it really doesn’t sound very grounded, or true, or real to me (sorry). Sounds pretty complicated. Sounds like rules, like it’s a game or something. Like, again, you’re asked to please some ambivalent parent by jumping through a series of hoops. I don’t know, that all sounds pretty contaminated really—a lot of different worldviews kinda crammed together. You’ve got a little Nirvana, a little Human Potential Movement, a little Dharma Wheel, a little Happy Ever After. Some of it might be true and some of it might be crap, how do we know? In that scheme, for instance, what’s the point of maturing if you just return to infantile fusion with the Mother and Father? And how long is a cycle, and what does it have to do with me right now? The Earth needs my will now, the Earth is wounded now. I’ve got work to do. What if living amongst the goddess and god in harmony isn’t my goal? Would that make me any less Wiccan?

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Science has done some lovely things over the centuries but I don't know that science is going to solve the really, really big problems like hunger and hate and greed. Hey, Mr Scientist, my heart is broken, can you fix it?

All very good points

But the last one there about the broken heart is rather an orange to the apples presented before it. Science could (and I think will) solve the problem of hunger. Only time and maturity of the human race will solve the hate and greed problem.

Hasn’t science already solved the hunger problem in that sense? We could feed everyone in the entire world next year if we made it our first priority. But it’s not our first priority. Why is that? Science will never answer that question. To understand hate, you have to understand love; to understand greed, you have to understand generosity. What is science going to do about these forces that rule our lives?

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
One last question. My wife tells me that my writting style is rather difficult to understand. She says that the only reason why she understands what I write is b/c she knows me personally. Is this true? Do you guys have a hard time understanding? Should I make an attempt to be clearer? I'd rather not be misunderstood.

You seem perfectly lucid to me.

Hey Sigma, I know you had a lot more questions than I’ve answered but this post (to say nothing of this thread!) is getting very long. Your email idea is generous and I’d be happy to take you up on it, but I’d also be up for starting another thread on the paranormal. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one on this board, even though River is in a lot of ways the central character of our favorite show. I think it’s time we started sharing our stories, you know, for Rue.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HK and Sigma,

I'd love to do the email thing, but don't start up one on my account. I don't have enought to contribute to be a real participant.

But I would actually like to find out what your collective experiences have been like, since my life seems to have been meager in that way. I have no clue what you are referring to.

The other thing I'd like to share at some point is my own enlightenment about the world and the consequences of our actions, directed and driven by our intentions.

Finally, I do agree that if one believes in a soul, then for symmetry's sake its existance should be two-ended: it comes from somewhere and goes to somewhere. (Rather than the Christian belief that it comes from nothing then exists forever.) Decades ago I did hear something that resonated with what my mother would tell me about never being able to take anything back b/c that moment in time will never come again. What this person said was that our decisions and our actions are immortal, and that the effects of what we do will carry forward for all time.

I guess I'm old and low in energy. Eternal life seems a burden. Either you are in the same place, forever and ever, with no way out and nothing changing, or you are destined to do things over, and over and over. I prefer to think of myself dissipating until there is nothing left but peace. Not peace for me, as I will not be there, but peace in the spot where I used to be.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE