(NASA-surplus heat-shield tiles firmly in place...)

I appreciate that YOUR Goddess is Gaia.  Thank you for sharing that.  

(Is this worship of Gaia the official position of the real-world CAW?  If so,
perhaps _Foundation's Edge_ might be a more appropriate work to base it upon?  
Please, do not take offense -- none is intended -- I merely ask for a
clarification as to CAW's origin and focus.)

I know I am "only an egg", but I feel I must speak on this issue.  I know that
much of CAW is only *somewhat* based on Heinlein's SISL -- it's a divergence
that is probably workable for its members -- but I feel a wrongness to see
"grok" in a context that so completely diverges from Mike's (Heinlein's) basic
premises.

As Mike stated in his last conversation with Jubal, the majority of the
people he tried to teach could not get away from the concept of God being
something external, something outside them that would cuddle and protect them.
This seems to be a perpetuation of such a case.  Worshipping Gaia is a fine
thing -- our planet should be better cared for -- but that is not, as far as I
can tell, in the spirit either RAH or his character intended.  This is
Gaiaism, not Solipsism, and is not what Mike taught.   But, as Mike would be
first to point out (were he a real person and not a fictional character), the
naming of names is unimportant, as all faiths are valid, and all portraits of
God are good so long as the image of God continues to be a grokking one.  

The environmental issues are a wonderful thing to keep in mind.  However, the
polution is not the problem.  Nor, in fact, are the polluters (though they are
a factor).  The problem is in Man's mental attitude that he need not be
responsible for his actions.  This is a much bigger problem than just PCBs in
the water or dioxin in the soil.  Those are symptoms of a much bigger disease,
and a holistic approach to treatment would call for a cure of the disease, not
a treatment of the symptoms.  If Man were taught to be responsible, he would
take care of these things as a matter of course, as he would be incapable of
damaging his home in this fashion -- much like one of Mike's disciples would
be incapable of destroying the Earth upon achieving the power to do so.

I don't want to hog the soapbox too much.  I'm "only an egg" here, and do not
wish to speak wrongly on these things -- but I have seen contradictions in
what I have been reading, and do not think that *you* grok in fullness.  

Oh -- when Mike told the grasshopper "Thou Art God", he was talking to
himself.

THOU Art God
------------ Gavin

: Gavin S. Patton (mi...@mcs.com) wrote:
: : In article <dhummerCvFGuH....@netcom.com> dhum...@netcom.com (Joy Williams) writes:
: : >First of all, I really don't think that you grokking this very well.  We
: : >worship GAIA.  SHe is our primary GODDESS.  Gaia, the Earth is Divine for
: : >us.

: : (NASA-surplus heat-shield tiles firmly in place...)

: : I appreciate that YOUR Goddess is Gaia.  Thank you for sharing that.  

: : (Is this worship of Gaia the official position of the real-world CAW?  

I would like to follow up on this by posting some of the stuff on our
latest *draft* version of our handbook.  When it is finally finished, it
will be available for $5.

Q:  What does the Church of All WOrlds believe.
A:  The CHurch of All Worlds is not a belief-based religion, but a
religion of experience.  CAW members, or "Waterkin," try to avoid
speaking of "belief" or "faith." [and if we do, it is just because we are
fallible, like anyone else].   We are committed to honoring each other's
unique individual experiences and perspectives.  We are not trying to
become "true believers," but people of knowledge.  "Belief" is
generally an expression of wishful thinking rather than true
understanding, and positions of belief far too often form a basis for the
persecution of unbelievers.  If anything, CAW is a religions of heretics.

Q:  What does the CAW teach about God?
A:  CAW embraces the theology of *pantheism*, as we experience what has
been called "God" as an immanent quality inherently manifest in every
living Being, from a single cell to an entire planet -- a likely the
Universe itself.  We define *Divinity* as the highest level of aware
consciousness accessible to each living being, manifesting itself in the
self-actualization of that Being.  Divinity is a function of emergent
evolution.  Thus every man, woman, cat, snake, flower or grass hopper IS
"God."  We express this in the phrase, "Thou Art God" [or thou art
God/dess] which was used by Robert Heinlein in his germinal novel,
"Stranger in a Strange Land" but may also be found in the Bible, (Psalms
82:6; John 10:34) and in much basic thinking of Hinduism and Buddhism.  
At the macrocosmic level, we recognize the entire Earth is a vast living
Entity:  Mother Earth, Mother Nature, the Goddess.  We also recognize
that groups of living Beings organized into various ecosystems may
manifest psychically as a single collective Entity:  hence the God and
Goddess of Witchcraft (the animal and plant kingdoms of Earth), local
Spirits of particular places, and even tribal deities, such as Jahveh
(the collective unconsciousness of the Hebrew people).  However, Gods,
Goddesses and Spirits are personae with their own agenda, and should not
be considered *merely* as aspects of human psychology, as the Jungians
would have it....

"We observe that the great dilemma of present-day human society seems to
be the alienation caused by splitting apart man and woman, humanity and
Nature, matter and spirit, light and dark, good and evil.  The basic
commitmentof the CAW is to the re-integration or re-linking of people
with ourselves, our fellow humans and with the whole of living Nature
around us.  There are many religions, and they are not all of the same
mold..."

Q:  What's different about the CAW?
A:  CAW may  be the first religion to draw as much of its inspiration
from the future as from the past, embracing science fiction as mythology
with the same enthusiasm as we embrace the classical myths of ancient
time.  We are future oriented, meaning we care about how we evolve and
change, not only about how we got here and how we will come to an end.  
We embrace evolution and in embracing the planet as a living organism, we
embrace the evolutionary changes of the planet by bringing human
consciousness into direct contact with the growing web of planetary
consciousness through such things as the worldwide computer Internet.  
Unlike nearly all other religions, we are not focused on nostalgia for a
Paradise Lose; we are actively involveda in helping to save the present
world as well as working to actualize a visionary future.  WIth roots
deep in the Earth and branches reaching towards the stars, we evoke and
create myths not of a Golden Age long past, but of one yet to come."
copyright 1994, Otter Zell, from CAW Membership Handbook, p38, (again
this is the draft version)

Does this help?

Thou art God/dess
: --
: Joy Williams / dhum...@netcom.com
: Scion in the Church of All Worlds
--
Joy Williams / dhum...@netcom.com
Scion in the Church of All Worlds

Gavin S. Patton (mi...@mcs.com) wrote:
: In article <dhummerCvFGuH....@netcom.com> dhum...@netcom.com (Joy Williams) writes:
: >First of all, I really don't think that you grokking this very well.  We
: >worship GAIA.  SHe is our primary GODDESS.  Gaia, the Earth is Divine for
: >us.

: (NASA-surplus heat-shield tiles firmly in place...)

: I appreciate that YOUR Goddess is Gaia.  Thank you for sharing that.  

: (Is this worship of Gaia the official position of the real-world CAW?  

Define worship. I consider worship to mean love and adore.  I love and
adore myself as well.  I may have mistepped up there.  I celebrate
and hold in deep reverence Gaia, as do most people in the Church.  But I
also celebrate human beings, whom I regard as Gaians.

If so,
: perhaps _Foundation's Edge_ might be a more appropriate work to base it upon?  
: Please, do not take offense -- none is intended -- I merely ask for a
: clarification as to CAW's origin and focus.)

Well, we aren't going to change the very book that gave us the
inspiration for our religion.  We may add some things (we have an
extensive bibliography), but we are not going to take that away from
ourselves because many of its concepts are critical to how we came into
being.

: I know I am "only an egg", but I feel I must speak on this issue.  I know that
: much of CAW is only *somewhat* based on Heinlein's SISL -- it's a divergence
: that is probably workable for its members -- but I feel a wrongness to see
: "grok" in a context that so completely diverges from Mike's (Heinlein's) basic
: premises.

How do you feel that?  How do you define "grok?"
I think that you need to read some of the Church's stuff, not just
Heinlein.  I am merely an egg in this whole thing as well, but I have
read almost all of the Green Eggs, most of the tracts, have started a
nest 3 times both on line and off-line.  I have consulted with the
Clergy, written articles, read numerous books on related topics.

To "grok" as I define it mean to become fully empathic with something.  
To get inconnection with it's Divinity to become one with its' Divinity.  
There are many times that I "grok" Gaia.  Been trying to do it 100% of
the time, but sometimes my own attachments get in the way.  

: As Mike stated in his last conversation with Jubal, the majority of the
: people he tried to teach could not get away from the concept of God being
: something external, something outside them that would cuddle and protect them.

Of course.  I never said that and didn't mean to imply that.

: This seems to be a perpetuation of such a case.  Worshipping Gaia is a fine
: thing -- our planet should be better cared for -- but that is not, as far as I
: can tell, in the spirit either RAH or his character intended.

You are missing a vital thing here.  We are all Divine.  That includes
the planet.  MOst of us agree with the Gaia Hypothesis, Otter had a
vision in 1967 and later published the Theagenesis theory.  If you bother
to take the trouble to check out our netcom ftp site you will find this
under ftp/pub/caw/article.  It basically states that we are all cells in the
massive organism called Gaia, which is an evolving being.  Just as we
are.  That she is moving toward self-reflexive consciousness, and we are
part and parcel of that process.  Heinlein understood how we evolved from
the story to something more complex and inclusive.  For heaven's sake, we
can't speak martian though, and haven't learned all of the telekinetic
stuff yet, nor are we even certain it is possible...it was after all,
mainly a book of fiction.  (Though our Priestesses have often been naked
and held boa constrictors around them).

 This is
: Gaiaism, not Solipsism, and is not what Mike taught.  
Why can't it be both SISLISM and GAIAISM.  They don't contradict one
another and the term and idea was not being used until 1970, silly!  
I'm sure had RAH written the book later, he probably would have
included this.
 We are all Gaians, we are all divine, and we are all God/dess, the
entire universe is DIvine!  I think  
that you are the one who is separating things here.  You seem to be
separating Gaia from the Divine, and in our Church we regard Her as
part of the Divine as well.  She is just a larger concentration of
Divinity than we are.  That doesn't make us any less or any more Divine
than Her, but just like my glial cells in my brain are both kinda
conscious and a part of my brain, I depend on them for my consciousness,
just as Gaia may very well depend on the kinda conscious sentient,
self-reflexive beings (which could be humans, though I am not so sure) for her own consciousness.   It's all mirror and reflections,
patterns that duplicate each other throughout creation.

But, as Mike would be
: first to point out (were he a real person and not a fictional character), the
: naming of names is unimportant, as all faiths are valid, and all portraits of
: God are good so long as the image of God continues to be a grokking one.  

No argument with that.  We see the Earth as a Diverse place and in our
Church we have die-hard SISLer's, Tibetan Buddhists, Celtic Shaman, etc,
etc., again reflecting and mirroring the rich diversity of Gaia herself.

: The environmental issues are a wonderful thing to keep in mind.  However, the
: polution is not the problem.  Nor, in fact, are the polluters (though they are
: a factor).  The problem is in Man's mental attitude that he need not be
: responsible for his actions.  This is a much bigger problem than just PCBs in
: the water or dioxin in the soil.  Those are symptoms of a much bigger disease,
: and a holistic approach to treatment would call for a cure of the disease, not
: a treatment of the symptoms.  If Man were taught to be responsible, he would
: take care of these things as a matter of course, as he would be incapable of
: damaging his home in this fashion -- much like one of Mike's disciples would
: be incapable of destroying the Earth upon achieving the power to do so.

I guess if we had a dogma (but we don't, our karma ran over it) it would
be Freedom = Responsibility, and that includes trying to heal the
planet.  We cannot be fully free to develop our consciousness and to
reconnect and cure the root of the Dis-ease of the pathology of humanity
if humanitiy continues life in an imperiled state.  It's kind of like
trying to give psychological counseling to someone who is in Auschwitz.  
The counseling doesn't do much good once they are back in the samsara of
the death camp.  And you are right, the root problem is feeling that we
are separate from each other and the Earth and the universe and the
Divine.  That is the root problem, and pollution and the polluters and
the murderers and the governments are symptomatic of a much more inherent
problem.  But that does not mean that while we are trying to work on the
root problem that this absolves us from trying to treat the symptoms.  
Because the host could die in the meantime,and then where would we be.

: I don't want to hog the soapbox too much.  I'm "only an egg" here, and do not
: wish to speak wrongly on these things -- but I have seen contradictions in
: what I have been reading, and do not think that *you* grok in fullness.  

I don't have a great deal of time for this newsgroups, though I do try to
make an appearance daily, because I maintain
the cawpagan-l mailing list, and spend a lot of time on it.  I do "grok"
pretty well, I just may not have been entirely clear in my language.  
Please come and check out our mailing list.  There are people who have
been in the Church a lot longer than I, and maybe you could address some
of your questions there.  We even have one of our Clergy on it, who has
been with the Church since the beginning.

: Oh -- when Mike told the grasshopper "Thou Art God", he was talking to
: himself.

That's how *you* interpret it.

The exact wording does not indicate that.  It says and I quote:

"...And incautious grasshopper came whirring to a landing on the grass a
few inches from his face;  Mike turned his head, looked at it as it
stared back at him.  "Thou art God," he said happily and discorporated.

p 430.

It seems to me that he was talking to the grasshopper.  That's how most
people would interpret that.  SInce Heinlein ain't around to ask, :-(, we
can't tell for certain.  But my understanding of the written word
indicates that he was talking to the grasshopper.

: THOU Art God
: ------------ Gavin

--
Joy Williams / dhum...@netcom.com
Scion in the Church of All Worlds

Joy,

I appreciate deeply that you did *not* do as many others have, and immediately
reply with a stream of pressurized napalm!

I accept that you feel you misspoke -- English is very cumbersome, and putting
it into a textual context doesn't help.  From the tone of your post, and the
emphasis you put on it, it appeared that you were saying that "we" (speaking
ex cathedra, as it were) worshipped Gaia -- exclusively -- and that other
interpretations were either unwelcome or inappropriate.  This seemed
contradictory to me.

I have not read *all* of the Green Eggs, just the most recent few (and I did
see the article on the mailing list -- Page 41, I believe...).  I will of
course avail myself of your ftp site, and read the things there, to understand
you more completely -- and then, if I grok in fullness, I'll speak again.

To "grok" means to me that one understands a thing by merging with it, making
it a part of you -- and you of it.  It is an erasure of boundaries, to
acknowledge the interconnectedness that is already there, but of which we may
not be aware at first.  I don't see it as a "getting" interconnection, but
merely of becoming aware of the connections that are already there.  This, I
think is the place where our matrices do not align -- I see Reality as already
linked to me, and me to it, but I may not be aware of that connectedness.  Do
you imply that these connections must be established by an act, or am I
misreading you again?

I will gladly read this article.  Perhaps, if waiting is fulfilled, I might
write my own articles detailing my own visions -- which don't contradict what
you have said of Otter's article, by the way.  In fact, they tend to support
his article, but may help to add some fine structure.  Kinda like Jello.

Heinlein firmly believed Man could learn these things -- "Martian" was a
convenient mechanism of indirection, allowing a suspension of
disbelief. Perhaps some of it *is* possible.  When I founded my own church
(long before I knew of CAW's existence), I founded it on the principle that
enlightenment comes from learning to read the "book of God" in the original.  
Once you have learned that, one gains the ability to "write in the margins",
so to speak.  Perhaps CAW would be a worthy venue for these theories in the
future.

Of course!  Don't get Martian on me, Joy -- don't forget how to laugh!

But, by meeting the grasshopper, wasn't he meeting his "other end"?  He was
talking to a grokking think by talking to the grasshopper -- and hence, to
himself.  Sorry, I do have a rather Zen streak about me. <grin>

---------- Gavin

[much helpful stuff clipped to save bandwidth]

As a matter of fact, it does -- a great deal.  In truth, there is little there
I would find disagreement with.  It also parallels some of my own discoveries.
After all, truth is truth.  I *do* feel that I may have something to offer to
CAW, as what I have built is a more "technical" side to what you already
described.  I will have to see what others have done before me, to determine
whose toes I might be stepping on inadvertently, before I say more -- but yes,
you've allayed a lot of my fears.  I was sincerely afraid that the name "The
Church of All Worlds" had been approrpriated for yet another neo-pagan
movement attempting to escape the (unwarranted) negative connotations attached
to extant groups such as Wicca.  I've seen this before, and was hoping I was
wrong.

Let's see what some waiting does, okay?  And thanks.

-------------- Gavin

* Original Area: CAW
* Original From: Steveprime (93:9810/0)
* Original To  : Internet (93:9810/12)

Gavin,

The points you make regarding the real-world CAW and Heinlein's fictional
creation are very well-made.  In fact, I wrote something similar (though not
nearly as elequent) two weeks ago on this very net.

The reply I received from Joy Davidson was the usual Gaia-worshipping BS, along
with statements that "Heinlein used to write us letters."

Whoopee.  RAH wrote to EVERYBODY -- and was unfailingly polite, no matter how
far off base he thought you might be.

I'm sorry to say, but the real-world CAW takes those element from Heilein that
already exist in most Pagan movements, then sugar-coat it to make it more
palatable for science fiction fans.

For Exhibit A to prove my point, I offer you any issue of Green Egg Magazine.

Have fun, never thirst.

-Steve

* Original Area: CAW
* Original From: Irv Koch (93:9810/12)
* Original To  : Steveprime (93:9810/0)

 S> The reply I received from Joy Davidson was the usual

I think you mean Joy (Orser) Williams.

 S> polite, no matter how far off base he thought you might be.

 S> I'm sorry to say, but the real-world CAW takes those
 S> element from Heilein that already exist in most Pagan
 S> movements, then sugar-coat it to make it more palatable
 S> for science fiction fans.

 S> For Exhibit A to prove my point, I offer you any issue
 S> of Green Egg Magazine.

There is no attempt made to sugar coat and a large plurality of CAW members
would like to see all SF influence eliminated.  There is negligible
counterweight.  Otter agreed with me that "this is an imbalance."  That is one
reason I have posted messages requesting anyone interested in a subgroup of CAW
which downplays the Pagan aspects in favor of the nearly forgotten other
root(s) to contact me with a snail mail address.

In article <2e70f...@p0.f12.n9810.z93.fidonet.org>,
Someone On PODS <Someone.On.P...@f629.n109.z1.fidonet.org> wrote:

I have been an avid reader of Green Egg magazine for about 5 years.
I haven't read SISL (yet).  I don't see how you could consider CAW
to be "sugar-coated" Paganism.  Many letters to the GE forum have been
on the order of "if you could make GE sugar coated" (dropping articles
on pan-fidelity, drugs, ect.) "then GE could become more mainstream
and sell more issues."  Thankfully, this has not happened (although am
was very concerned to see Diane Darling leaving as editrix--I hope things
won't change too much).

IMHO, CAW is a Neo-Pagan religion founded by people who believed that
some of the ideas in SISL were useful.  CAW has never made any pretense
that they weren't a Neo-Pagan religion (read Margot Adler's Drawing Down
the Moon), and I certainly can't see how you consider them "sugar coated".
CAW served as a resource to help me learn about the Pagan community.
I have since linked up with other circles in my area (Seattle), and have
found that some of the people there also enjoy reading Green Egg.  I want
to support the work of CAW, so I think this time around, rather than
just renewing my GE subscription, I'll join CAW.

About the only thing I haven't always enjoyed about GE magazine is that
sometimes them flames are allowed to go on too long in the forum.
The same thing seems to be happening here (what in the world does this
thread have to do with Chicago!).

Steve, it's a big world out there.  If you don't like CAW, then please
go somewhere else, rather than focusing your negativity here.

: Gavin,

: The points you make regarding the real-world CAW and Heinlein's fictional
: creation are very well-made.  In fact, I wrote something similar (though not
: nearly as elequent) two weeks ago on this very net.

You obviously have not read some of the other correspondance he and I
had.  Read it all before posting this kind of ignorant stuff.

: The reply I received from Joy Davidson was the usual Gaia-worshipping BS, along
: with statements that "Heinlein used to write us letters."

My name is not Joy Davidson, but Joy Williams.  I am married to Tom Williams
who has been in
the Church since 1968.  I am very close friends with Otter, and am very
familiar with the history of our CHurch from the people who lived it.
I didn't say "Heinlein used to write us letters."  Heinlein corresponded
on an individual basis with Otter.  Check out your GE.

I do not appreciate your tone.  You could be a little more "unfailingly
polite" yourself.

: Whoopee.  RAH wrote to EVERYBODY -- and was unfailingly polite, no matter how
: far off base he thought you might be.

Not in his later years.  He couldn't answer most people and sent form
letters to people, or Virginia responded.  He took the time to answer
Otter though because Otter was not just another nerd from fandom.  The
responses (I have copies of the correspondence on my desk here) were not
just your one page letters, they were often times 2-3 pages long.

: I'm sorry to say, but the real-world CAW takes those element from Heilein that
: already exist in most Pagan movements, then sugar-coat it to make it more
: palatable for science fiction fans.

We started as a Science
Fiction Church and then integrated Neo-Pagan type things in it after we
(the CHurch) got in contact with Fred Adams of Feraferia.  There weren't
very many Pagan trads out there when we got started, so what do you
mean?  We did get turned on by Fred Adams cycle of the year, it's no
crime and no secret that we borrowed some of his elements, nor do we
insist that we alone have first rights on integrating a Goddess into our
religion.  That would be ridiculous.  However, Tom and Otter did bring
the Goddess into the Church of All Worlds, even if it was not in SISL,
per se.  Should I post a history of the CHurch?  WOuld that make things
clearer to folks?

We believe in
evolving, not devolving or staying stagnant. How old do you
think the CHurch is?  We started originally in 1962.  THe year after the
version of Heinlein's  SISL that RAH wanted published.  How in the world
do you think that we are sugar-coating anything?  Can you provide
any concrete examples?  That's a real bizarre statement.

: For Exhibit A to prove my point, I offer you any issue of Green Egg Magazine.

: Have fun, never thirst.

: -Steve

Steve, I really don't understand your hostility.  You seem inordinately
attached to attacking us, when in my knowledge, we haven't done a thing
to you.  Are you trying to cause disension?

ANd in the final analysis, if you don't like it ya can't have any.

Drink Deep!
Joy Williams
Internet Liaison, Church of All Worlds.
--
Joy Williams / dhum...@netcom.com
Scion in the Church of All Worlds

: I have been an avid reader of Green Egg magazine for about 5 years.
: I haven't read SISL (yet).  I don't see how you could consider CAW
: to be "sugar-coated" Paganism.  Many letters to the GE forum have been
: on the order of "if you could make GE sugar coated" (dropping articles
: on pan-fidelity, drugs, ect.) "then GE could become more mainstream
: and sell more issues."  Thankfully, this has not happened (although am
: was very concerned to see Diane Darling leaving as editrix--I hope things
: won't change too much).

Thanks, that was well put and needed to be said.  I think that if Steve
saw some of our rituals he would realize that there is nothing
sugar-coated about us, except for the fact that in our May Games for May
Queen and King, we may get covered with mango juice (sticky and sugary to
be sure! :-) but what a delight).  I would say that his definition is so
far off-base that I don't think he groks at all what we are about.  OUr
rituals and insights are heavy and intense (especially Samhain) as well
as playful and ecstatic.

DIane Darling's leaving will create a bit of an upheaval for the CAW, but
we do have a wonderful new editrix, Sun Barrier, who is also our May
Queen, Who I know will be able to handle the job.  The GE changes, just
like anything else.  Nothing is permanent and this is part of the
evolution of our Church.  Sun is a very capable person and I know that
once the cart stops wobbling a bit, she will do a bang-up job.

: IMHO, CAW is a Neo-Pagan religion founded by people who believed that
: some of the ideas in SISL were useful.  CAW has never made any pretense
: that they weren't a Neo-Pagan religion (read Margot Adler's Drawing Down
: the Moon), and I certainly can't see how you consider them "sugar coated".
: CAW served as a resource to help me learn about the Pagan community.
: I have since linked up with other circles in my area (Seattle), and have
: found that some of the people there also enjoy reading Green Egg.  I want
: to support the work of CAW, so I think this time around, rather than
: just renewing my GE subscription, I'll join CAW.

Great!  Glad to have you.  I know another person who just moved to
Seattle (Darren) who would probably like to get in touch with you.  you
can contact himw at to...@netcom.com.  You could also join our list, if
you haven't already.  send a message to lists...@netcom.com," subscribe
cawpagan-l".  I'll approve you to our list, and you may find some o ther
folks in your area who would like to join.

: About the only thing I haven't always enjoyed about GE magazine is that
: sometimes them flames are allowed to go on too long in the forum.
: The same thing seems to be happening here (what in the world does this
: thread have to do with Chicago!).

I agree with you on that.  THis may change.

: Steve, it's a big world out there.  If you don't like CAW, then please
: go somewhere else, rather than focusing your negativity here.

Yep, Like I told Steve, if you don't like it you can't have any.  :-)

Never thirst!
Joy Williams
Internet Liaison, Church of All Worlds
--
Joy Williams / dhum...@netcom.com
Scion in the Church of All Worlds

In article <2e70f...@p0.f12.n9810.z93.fidonet.org> Someone.On.P...@f629.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Someone On PODS) writes:

Thank you for the compliments, but I hope your previous post on a similar
subject was more polite and less offensive than this post.  I did my best not
to be blatantly insulting to Joy in my posts, and have had several very
informative correspondences with her since.  Take her up on any offers of
explanation -- they will be worth it.

Frankly, I wish *I* had gotten letters from Mr. H. -- I wouldn't say Whoopee
with such a downplaying attitude!

Jubal thought Mike's theology, at the beginning, was suitable for enriching
lawns.  That was only at the beginning, though.

Sigh.  Steve, you put me in a very awkward position!

To a small degree, I find some merit in what you say, though I wish you had
found a less abrasive way to say it.

I have found that the CAW of today is very much a living, breathing neo-pagan
church, one that has evolved beyond the germinal beginnings that RAH entrusted
to them.  I would not have chosen to move it in the same directions, but then,
I'm also not from a Wiccan background, nor any currently practiced neo-pagan
faith, like so many member of CAW are.  I have read Otter's treatise on Gaia,
and found it fascinating -- I would like to correspond with Otter someday, to
share what insights *I* can add to his beginnings.

Otter started a new church that is now thriving worldwide.  I have been
running an SF organization for 6 years, and realize how difficult such an
undertaking can be.  He is serving a very useful purpose, and has brought many
people happiness.  Green Egg is well-written, well-published, and I can fault
none of the articles either for intent or, in the areas in which I have
knowledge, content.

HOWEVER...

I still wish that Otter had chosen to downplay the connection to SISL as the
church evolved farther and farther away from that starting point.  The naming
of names is not important to God -- he IS all names -- but it *is* important
to those who do not yet know that they are God, and can claim those names
themselves.  I can see where a neophyte, whose only exposure to the Church of
All Worlds WAS in SISL might be confused by the current form of CAW...but,
once he had a chance to grok it and cherish it for what it was, I doubt it
would do him any harm.

Will I join CAW?  Probably not.  I am not a Gaia-worshipper, though I do
respect the life-sphere of this world, and do what I can to preserve it.  What
I would share with Otter would be the larger picture that Gaia fits into, the
part he probably just hasn't gotten to yet.  (I know how busy he probably is
-- I publish a magazine, too!)  I also do not hold the traditional Pagan
holidays -- all days are holy.  I usually do not do rituals -- rituals are but
one way of writing in the Book of God's margins, one that I never learned.  I
use other methods.  I have participated in those rituals, and have even
officiated at them, but they just aren't my pidgin.

Joy was very gracious in not "flaming" at me when I made my original post.  
I think she has shown great restraint in your case as well -- probably more
than I would have, were I hit with a post such as yours.  (Actually, I WAS
in that position on alt.magick, and it was a real mess.  I've learned a lot
since then.)  She was very patient with me, as I was "only an egg".  I did as
she suggested, and read what CAW has on netcom, and based my further opinions
on that.  I do not agree with all of it, but can fault none of it.  I suggest
you do the same.

Irv and I have been talking at length about options.  You are welcome to join
our discussions, if you wish.

------------------ Gavin