Magick
Sidney Lambe
accomplish anything that someone with 5 minutes of training in
creative visualization or self-hypnosis or chanting affirmations,
etc, can't accomplish.
This is because the source of their supposed 'magickal lore'
is scholars who don't believe in magick. Therefore they can't
interpret the evidence they study correctly.
They are looking through the eyes of a completely different
worldview.
So you get things like the idea that the elements of magick are
Fire, Water, Earth, Air, and Aether/Spirit.
That's how the mind of a scientific materialist interprets
certain symbols from ancient civilizations.
But what they really represented was Ideation, Emotion,
Imagination, Intent, and Desire. The real elements of magick.
And they further distort real magickal lore by concluding that
magick can be accomplished by ritual acts, like a recipe for
potato salad: just combine the ingredients in certain proportions
and in certain ways, and no matter who you are and how often you
do it, you will get the same result.
And then you can wash up the dishes and scrub down the counters
and put everything away and that's it for magick until you
want to use it again.
Wrong. Magick is what we _are_. It's the nature of reality.
The true science. Beliefs (strong ideas reinforced with
emotion and imagination) are spells.
We are such amazing magicians that we have managed to
create a world where magick doesn't seem to exist.
And getting back home again is a rough road.
--
Sidney Lambe / Evergreen - usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
http://tinyurl.com/63zc9bh - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
All will be well. All manner of things will be well.
Bassos
Not good enough as far as apologies go.
Try again once more.
Or not.
slider
sid wrote...
> We are such amazing magicians that we have managed to
> create a world where magick doesn't seem to exist.
>
> And getting back home again is a rough road.
### - "and the people bowed and prayed
to the neon god they made"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLEmyeQlS5M
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Bassos
> sid wrote...
>
>> We are such amazing magicians that we have managed to
>> create a world where magick doesn't seem to exist.
>>
>> And getting back home again is a rough road.
>
> ### - "and the people bowed and prayed
> to the neon god they made"
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLEmyeQlS5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKnxmkOAj88
So do you really care for music do ya ?
slider
Lorax666
>> the source of ...'magickal lore' on {"practices of the neo-pagans"}
>> is scholars who don't believe in magick. Therefore they can't
>> interpret the evidence they study correctly.
I don't notice this is true. the sources are folklore and grimoires, and not always
through the interps of academics. many of them do report the folklore properly, some
portion of this is reinvested with innovative construction by the Neopagans.
>> So you get things like the idea that the elements of magick are
>> Fire, Water, Earth, Air, and Aether/Spirit.
novel constructs are common in all areas of the practice. it isn't a problem that these
are overlays or thought to be ancient.
>> That's how the mind of a scientific materialist interprets
>> certain symbols from ancient civilizations.
my impression is that these were religious and mystics promoting this elementalism. in
fact your speculation which i have omitted is what is novel and unfounded. what you are
apparently complaining about is what is traditional, however efficient or worldly.
>> ...concluding that
>> magick can be accomplished by ritual acts, like a recipe for
>> potato salad: just combine the ingredients in certain proportions
>> and in certain ways, and no matter who you are and how often you
>> do it, you will get the same result.
spellcrafting typically has a skill to it, but it isn't spiritualized.
>> And then you can wash up the dishes and scrub down the counters
>> and put everything away and that's it for magick until you
>> want to use it again.
that's correct. kitchen magic is keen.
>> ...Magick is what we _are_. It's the nature of reality.
woo-woo New Ageisms aren't really magic-based, they're dogmas. it's a kind of feel-good
self-empowerment through pseudo-(not psuedo-) scientisms.
>> The true science. Beliefs (strong ideas reinforced with
>> emotion and imagination) are spells.
this is false. science is a materialistic affair which investigates the details of
whatever it can parse as real. true science doesn't stand afeared to explore all of the
ins and outs of religion and occultism and anything between. beliefs are what religions
and political zombies are made out of, and have little to do with spellcrafting save that
there may be beliefs about how they ought to be done or what makes them work.
>> We are such amazing magicians that we have managed to
>> create a world where magick doesn't seem to exist.
it retreats only because its confines were hyper-regarded for centuries.
--
Troll Towelhead
http://www.youtube.com/user/TrollTowelhead
Sidney Lambe
Another neo-pagan windbag who can't make water wet with magick.
All he can do is parrot superstitous crap he reads in books
or on websites and the like.
I notice that he is defending scientific materialism above. That
alone tells any real student of magick that he is clueless in
this area.
Nature _is_ supernatural. Energy changes form. The spirit
becomes flesh.
Sidney Lambe
I've heard all this crap before. From a hundred role-playing
phonies like you.
When you figure out that there's a difference between magick
and parroting superstitious crap from books and webpages,
you'll maybe get somewhere.
Sidney Lambe
I've heard all this crap before, from a thousand bookmages.
You couldn't make your own mother love you with the
superstitious nonsense you call 'magick'.
[delete]
M. JL Esq.
> None of the so-called 'magickal' practices of the neo-pagans can
> accomplish anything that someone with 5 minutes of training in
> creative visualization or self-hypnosis or chanting affirmations,
> etc, can't accomplish.
*Chuckle* i wonder what Sidney thinks these "neo-pagans" are doing if
not "creative visualization or self-hypnosis or chanting affirmations."
--
JL
HG
> [SNIP]
>
> Wrong. Magick is what we _are_. It's the nature of reality.
> The true science. Beliefs (strong ideas reinforced with
> emotion and imagination) are spells.
>
> We are such amazing magicians that we have managed to
> create a world where magick doesn't seem to exist.
>
> And getting back home again is a rough road.
Sid is describing the role-playing game "Mage: the Ascension"
It's an exellent role-playing game indeed, but it has nothing to do with
reality.
HG
HG
In Sid's world, Sid is the only True Magician there is.
Have you ever seen him acknowledge anyone else as "having a clue what
magick really is?" No, you haven't. That's because according to him,
he is the only person in the world who knows the True Art. Everybody
else, including all the scientists who have ever lived, is a clueless
fake.
In Sid's world, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton were
ignorant morons. (He stated that evolution is bullshit and physical
sciences are dead wrong.) Only Sid is The True Magician.
HG
Tom
That's exactly what he thinks they're doing. But he thinks that's not
what *he's* doing.
Compare this attitude with Sid's view that belief creates reality but
that any belief that differs from his is not reality.
Note also Sid's challenge that others provide him with evidence for
their beliefs but Sid refuses to supply evidence for his beliefs.
See the pattern here?
Kaydon
> Sidney Lambe <ever...@alt.religion.wicca> writes:
>
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > Wrong. Magick is what we are. It's the nature of reality.
> > The true science. Beliefs (strong ideas reinforced with
> > emotion and imagination) are spells.
> >
> > We are such amazing magicians that we have managed to
> > create a world where magick doesn't seem to exist.
> >
> > And getting back home again is a rough road.
>
>
> Sid is describing the role-playing game "Mage: the Ascension"
>
> It's an exellent role-playing game indeed, but it has nothing to do
> with reality.
>
>
> HG
I happen to agree with a lot of what Sid says, but not his attitude.
The attitude of "My beliefs are right, yours are wrong!" That might
very well be tru, but even a 'wrong' belief is 'right' because it is
someone elses belief, not his. To the other person, their beliefs are
'right' but Sid's are 'wrong'. Everyone's beliefs are valid, no matter
what they are. 'Different' isn't synonymous with 'wrong'. It is magical
that this fact goes misunderstood. I could write a book about this but
I've wasted enough time on it already with this one post.
<3
xoxoxoxoo
--
"Men are like ants. As soon as you see one you can be sure your picnic
is ruined."
"If everyone held the virtue of personal responsibility in high esteem,
we would all be much better off."
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
> HG entered the following into usenet history in
> <871v1jh...@iki.fi>:
>
>> Sidney Lambe <ever...@alt.religion.wicca> writes:
>>
>> > [SNIP]
>> >
>> > Wrong. Magick is what we are. It's the nature of reality.
>> > The true science. Beliefs (strong ideas reinforced with
>> > emotion and imagination) are spells.
>> >
>> > We are such amazing magicians that we have managed to create
>> > a world where magick doesn't seem to exist.
>> >
>> > And getting back home again is a rough road.
>>
>>
>> Sid is describing the role-playing game "Mage: the Ascension"
>>
>> It's an exellent role-playing game indeed, but it has nothing
>> to do with reality.
Talk sure is cheap. I will bet my life that this clown, HG,
can't make a bird fly with the superstitious nonsense he
calls "magick".
In fact, I shit in his mouth and the fucking punk just lives
with it because he can't do anything but flap his gums.
That's why he's in my killfile.
> I happen to agree with a lot of what Sid says,
So what?
One day you will learn that the Truth doesn't give a shit whether
you like it or agree with it or not. It simply IS.
> but not his attitude. The attitude of "My beliefs are right,
> yours are wrong!"
Some beliefs are true, and some are false. Like it or not.
> That might very well be true,
It is.
> but even a 'wrong' belief is 'right' because it is someone
> elses belief, not his. To the other person, their beliefs are
> 'right' but Sid's are 'wrong'. Everyone's beliefs are valid,
Kind of. All beliefs are valid as such.
But if someone is planning a trip to the moon, and they are
taking up all the space on their rocket with crackers, because
they believe the moon is made of green cheese, then you need to
set them straight.
They won't get far without significant stores of oxygen, just
for starters...
> no matter what they are. 'Different' isn't synonymous with
> 'wrong'.
No, but wrong is synonymous with wrong.
All beliefs are not true, they are simply valid. there's
a huge difference.
> It is magical that this fact goes misunderstood.
It isn't a fact, it is your delusion.
The idea that anything is possible is nonsense. An
infinite number of things are possible, but many things
are not.
> I could write a book about this but I've wasted enough time on
> it
Sure. You could write a book on how to ride moonbeams if
you wanted.
And it would be nonsense, like most of what you have posted
above.
No, fool. If you believe you have 4 arms, it does not mean
you have 4 arms.
It means that you THINK you do.
M. JL Esq.
Well ... the bi polar bare ass has dwindled to the increasingly rare &
barely audible whimper, that's one down, one to go?
--
JL
Tom
>
> I happen to agree with a lot of what Sid says, but not his attitude.
> The attitude of "My beliefs are right, yours are wrong!"
But that's pretty much all Sid ever says.
> That might
> very well be tru, but even a 'wrong' belief is 'right' because it is
> someone elses belief, not his. To the other person, their beliefs are
> 'right' but Sid's are 'wrong'. Everyone's beliefs are valid, no matter
> what they are.
That's a tricky one. Does "valid" mean "right"? For any given
belief, my reasoning may be valid yet still yield a wrong conclusion
because my premise was faulty to begin with. Similarly, a belief may
seem true from one perspective and false from another, despite all
reasoning. That's the whole point of the thought experiment called
"Schrodinger's Cat". Schrodinger argued that it was absurd to say
that there was a state in which the cat was both alive and dead at the
same time, and he's absolutely right on the level at which a cat
exists, but that's precisely the way subatomic particles act
nevertheless.
I've often pointed out that if belief made reality, there couldn't
possibly be any surprises, since whatever we expected would always be
exactly what we got. Apologists try to get around this by saying that
the part of us that does the reality-making is not our conscious mind
and therefore only our conscious mind experiences surprise, but that
simply posits that you are not really you and therefore your beliefs
are not really your beliefs, which is just another way of saying that
your beliefs don't actually create reality at all.
Tom
>
> Talk sure is cheap. I will bet my life that this clown, HG,
> can't make a bird fly with the superstitious nonsense he
> calls "magick".
Yet birds fly. How does Sid know HG is not responsible for this?
Calling one belief "true" and another "superstitious nonsense" is
meaningless unless one can demonstrate that the "true" one works no
matter what you believe and that the "superstitious nonsense" never
works no matter what you believe. So, if you begin with an assertion
that belief itself *makes* something true, no such demonstration of
falsity is possible.
> No, fool. If you believe you have 4 arms, it does not mean
> you have 4 arms.
>
> It means that you THINK you do.
So if Sid believes his beliefs create reality, that doesn't mean his
beliefs create reality. It only means he thinks they do.
Kaydon
<7fe16b0f-15ac-4bdc...@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>:
> On Apr 3, 1:03 pm, "Kaydon" <kaydonacat...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I happen to agree with a lot of what Sid says, but not his attitude.
> > The attitude of "My beliefs are right, yours are wrong!"
>
> But that's pretty much all Sid ever says.
Yes:P
> > That might
> > very well be tru, but even a 'wrong' belief is 'right' because it is
> > someone elses belief, not his. To the other person, their beliefs
> > are 'right' but Sid's are 'wrong'. Everyone's beliefs are valid, no
> > matter what they are.
>
> That's a tricky one. Does "valid" mean "right"?
Maybe and maybe not. As you said, it depends on perspective :)
> For any given
> belief, my reasoning may be valid yet still yield a wrong conclusion
> because my premise was faulty to begin with. Similarly, a belief may
> seem true from one perspective and false from another, despite all
> reasoning. That's the whole point of the thought experiment called
> "Schrodinger's Cat". Schrodinger argued that it was absurd to say
> that there was a state in which the cat was both alive and dead at the
> same time, and he's absolutely right on the level at which a cat
> exists, but that's precisely the way subatomic particles act
> nevertheless.
Yes. Potentiality. Probability <3
> I've often pointed out that if belief made reality, there couldn't
> possibly be any surprises, since whatever we expected would always be
> exactly what we got. Apologists try to get around this by saying that
> the part of us that does the reality-making is not our conscious mind
> and therefore only our conscious mind experiences surprise, but that
> simply posits that you are not really you and therefore your beliefs
> are not really your beliefs, which is just another way of saying that
> your beliefs don't actually create reality at all.
Again, is a matter of perspective:P It all depends on where someone
believes their beliefs come from. And where that belief comes from ...
and where that belief comes from ... ad infinutum. Then there's the
nature of belief to consider. And a million and one other things. Then
that a belief that a particular belief is true is inconsequential so
long as the belief serves a purpose. Then that here's no point even
thinking about it bcoz it makes me dizzy ^_^
Kaydon
<ee732999-0a4d-4fa2...@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
> On Apr 3, 2:28 pm, Sidney Lambe <evergr...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
> >
> > Talk sure is cheap. I will bet my life that this clown, HG,
> > can't make a bird fly with the superstitious nonsense he
> > calls "magick".
>
> Yet birds fly. How does Sid know HG is not responsible for this?
>
> Calling one belief "true" and another "superstitious nonsense" is
> meaningless unless one can demonstrate that the "true" one works no
> matter what you believe and that the "superstitious nonsense" never
> works no matter what you believe. So, if you begin with an assertion
> that belief itself makes something true, no such demonstration of
> falsity is possible.
>
> > No, fool. If you believe you have 4 arms, it does not mean
> > you have 4 arms.
> >
> > It means that you THINK you do.
>
> So if Sid believes his beliefs create reality, that doesn't mean his
> beliefs create reality. It only means he thinks they do.
There beliefs that are believed universally. There beliefs stored in
the collective unconscious, if you will. You'd have to be extremely
powerful to override a belief of the collective unconscious against
it's will. The collective unconscious beliefs are outside individual
control. It is theorized that if everyone started believing humans
could fly unaided, for example, it would be so. But who knows??
This is just a theory. It matters not if it's true or not, it serves a
purpose ^_^
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
This guy has some good ideas, but a lot of them are just crap.
The source of beliefs are found associated with them in your
conscious mind: the reason(s) the inner self chose them.
Before you can change them, you have to face them and the
reasons for them. This is not a reasoning process. It is
simply awareness. Thoughts are things...
Beliefs (spells) are not just floating randomly in your mind.
(the vast majority aren't) They are part of your spell tree
or belief system.
When you are taking your own inventory (reading your own mind)
you need to follow the logical chains to the core beliefs at
the base of any particular brannch. Remove those with your
imagination, and everything above them vanishes too. FAil to
do this, and the core belief will just produce the same one
again...
-- --
Tom
>
> The source of beliefs are found associated with them in your
> conscious mind: the reason(s) the inner self chose them.
See what I mean about the evasions involved in asserting that belief
creates reality? The beliefs you think you have are not necessarily
your real beliefs (unless you're Sid, of course) and you are not you
(unless you're Sid of course). Therefore your beliefs are not real
(unless you're Sid of course). So it's those "real" beliefs that
create reality and those are Sid's beliefs, not yours, because Sid is
in touch with his "inner self" and you're not. Sid knows this because
you do not share his beliefs, which anyone who was in touch with his
"inner self" would automatically accept as true.
> Before you can change them, you have to face them and the
> reasons for them. This is not a reasoning process.
So you examine the reasons why you believe something but without doing
any actual reasoning. I suppose it's sort of like looking at complex
mathematical equations without understanding what they mean and
saying, "Boy, this stuff sure doesn't make any sense to me, so it must
actually be nonsense and anybody who claims it does mean something is
either a superstitious fool or a liar." At no time shall Sid ever
consider the possibility that there is anything he doesn't fully
understand. If he doesn't understand something someone says, it
absolutely has to be because there's nothing there to understand.
> Beliefs (spells) are not just floating randomly in your mind.
> (the vast majority aren't) They are part of your spell tree
> or belief system.
>
> When you are taking your own inventory (reading your own mind)
> you need to follow the logical chains to the core beliefs at
> the base of any particular brannch. Remove those with your
> imagination, and everything above them vanishes too. FAil to
> do this, and the core belief will just produce the same one
> again...
OK, so Sid says you should stop believing anything logical by just
imagining that you're removing "logic chains" that you visualize as
branches of an imaginary tree which represents your belief system.
Then you replace those "logic chains/tree branches" with whatever Sid
tells you.
It's nothing but a bit of creative visualization and self-hypnosis.
Yet, Sid says that creative visualization and self-hypnosis are *not*
magick.
Kaydon
> On Apr 3, 9:24 pm, Sidney Lambe <evergr...@alt.religion.wicca> wrote:
> >
> > The source of beliefs are found associated with them in your
> > conscious mind: the reason(s) the inner self chose them.
>
> See what I mean about the evasions involved in asserting that belief
> creates reality? The beliefs you think you have are not necessarily
> your real beliefs (unless you're Sid, of course) and you are not you
> (unless you're Sid of course). Therefore your beliefs are not real
> (unless you're Sid of course). So it's those "real" beliefs that
> create reality and those are Sid's beliefs, not yours, because Sid is
> in touch with his "inner self" and you're not. Sid knows this because
> you do not share his beliefs, which anyone who was in touch with his
> "inner self" would automatically accept as true.
It sort of baffles me how beliefs can be choices, as I posted in ARW a
while ago, yet Sid was more than happy to argue otherwise. Yes, beliefs
are thoughts backed up by emotion. Personally, I choose my thoughts and
emotions which form my beliefs. Apparently, Sid does otherwise. Or not.
Who can tell?!?!
Mike Duffy
79491c...@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> .. "superstitious nonsense" never works no matter what
The problem is that it works occaisionally. Usually just enough to
reinforce its validiity in the eyes of its believers.
Absorbed
> Tom<dant...@comcast.net> wrote in news:ee732999-0a4d-4fa2-90e1-
> 79491c...@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
>> .. "superstitious nonsense" never works no matter what
>
> The problem is that it works occaisionally.
The problem for some people is that it appears to work occasionally, not
that it actually works.
A rain dance may happen to coincide with some rain, but that doesn't
mean the rain dance caused the rain, even if it appears to have done so.
> Usually just enough to
> reinforce its validiity in the eyes of its believers.
"The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but
not when it misses." Francis Bacon
Kaydon
<incda3$l2j$1...@dont-email.me>:
> A rain dance may happen to coincide with some rain, but that doesn't
> mean the rain dance caused the rain, even if it appears to have done
> so.
But ... but ... dance in the rain is fun!! It even helps if it rains
sometime. It makes the whole dancing in the rain thing seem bit less
silly bcoz, let's face it, dancing in the rain without the rain is just
dance ^_^
Tom
> Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote in news:ee732999-0a4d-4fa2-90e1-
> 79491cea8...@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> > .. "superstitious nonsense" never works no matter what
>
> The problem is that it works occaisionally. Usually just enough to
> reinforce its validiity in the eyes of its believers.
Variable interval reward schedules produce some of the most persistent
learning. Gambling addiction is one of the most obvious examples of
that.
In "superstitions", one pairs a useless action with a randomly
occurring stimulus. It's easy to do, especially when one is immersed
in a social milieu in which the pairing is common, and can be
extremely hard to unlearn.
Tom
> Absorbed entered the following into usenet history in
>
> > A rain dance may happen to coincide with some rain, but that doesn't
> > mean the rain dance caused the rain, even if it appears to have done
> > so.
>
> But ... but ... dance in the rain is fun!!
True enough, but a rain dance is never done in the rain. It's done
when there has been no rain for so long that you're getting desperate.
Kaydon
<3510e59c-92da-42ae...@k10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
lol-tru :) Therein lies the flaw in my assertion ^_^ Maybe we could
invent a "thunderstorm dance"P
Bassos
> lol-tru :) Therein lies the flaw in my assertion ^_^ Maybe we could
> invent a "thunderstorm dance"P
You get what you invoke.
Kaydon
<4d9a02a5$0$6758$e4fe...@dreader26.news.xs4all.nl>:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je7MqES4Wfk <3
xoxoxoxoxoo
Bassos
> Bassos entered the following into usenet history in
> <4d9a02a5$0$6758$e4fe...@dreader26.news.xs4all.nl>:
>
>> Op 4-4-2011 19:23, Kaydon schreef:
>>
>>> lol-tru :) Therein lies the flaw in my assertion ^_^ Maybe we could
>>> invent a "thunderstorm dance"P
>>
>> You get what you invoke.
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f1cwycSWq0
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je7MqES4Wfk<3
Posts that harp on speaking posts happen.
That is kinda like downloading and installing the addon noscript in
mozilla's firefox.
(really, go team)
Bassos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKLqO789RU
I can play within limits.
Well, express within limits.
How bout you ?
In general ?
Actually Sid's defense was most effective.
Immediately shut up and go away by kill-file.
There may be alternate viewpoints.
Does anyone besides me see them ?
(i am banned by Sid, so he does not see, and the one that does see whois
king should watch the series camelot.
You do remember that it is ez to see tv while there is eztv ?
People claim this new show will be, erm, quite interesting.
wired :
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/04/10-reasons-why-you-should-watch-game-of-thrones/
This is that 1=10 thingy all over again.
Kaydon
> Actually Sid's defense was most effective.
> Immediately shut up and go away by kill-file.
If he stopped being a n00b, there would be no need to defence:P
<3
Bassos
> Bassos entered the following into usenet history in
> <4d9a107a$0$7816$e4fe...@dreader25.news.xs4all.nl>:
>
>
>> Actually Sid's defense was most effective.
>> Immediately shut up and go away by kill-file.
>
> If he stopped being a n00b, there would be no need to defence:P
true that.
then there is still fear though.
Only completely enlightened beings are not afraid, due to knowing
everything that happens, or so Tom's analogy about surprise would allow
me to post. (just analogy)
(even though not true, you can know everything and still just muck
about, alcohol and thc are excellent for such purposes)
Kaydon
lol-so I hear ^_^
Mike Duffy
news:83b741d5-2b51-4156...@j11g2000prn.googlegroups.co
m:
This was exactly my point; I was just too lazy to expand upon it as you
have so kindly done for me.
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
Bassos wrote:
> Op 3-4-2011 0:41, Sidney Lambe schreef:
> > None of the so-called 'magickal' practices of the neo-pagans can
> > accomplish anything that someone with 5 minutes of training in
> > creative visualization or self-hypnosis or chanting affirmations,
> > etc, can't accomplish.
Sid does not understand!
Learning and engaging in Social and Civil CONTROL of that FORCE is
rather essential.
You can be the Lone Stick, or share and be part of the Bundle total.
Sid is a a Self Made Ex-Spurt!
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
Sidney Lambe wrote:
> None of the so-called 'magickal' practices of the neo-pagans can
> accomplish anything that someone with 5 minutes of training in
> creative visualization or self-hypnosis or chanting affirmations,
> etc, can't accomplish.
That's Right!!!!
They are all the same thing!
So your Magick which YOU claim better than everyone else's Magic is
still the same Scatology, HUH!
YOU are what you are!
I can't help who I was Born as, regardless of what you believe.
Difference between me and the others is they claim a vaporous position.
I claim a Physical History!
I went to Wicca sorta like you Sid, because I grew up on Alice Bailey
and "WHITE MAGIC", "I AM"!
Wiccan's, don't understand that your right, but neither do you!
Thing is SID, Wiccan's and Druid's, have more sensitivity and Faith than
the Xtain Fundies you are used to!
Magic!
Only Works "IF YOU BELIEVE"!
Doesn't mean you can not believe in My Magic and make it Not Work!
Means My Force, only works If "I" Believe"!
Something we loose as children "Growing up!
How 2 to Play, to walk the Waters of the Odo, to See what most consider
the "Imaginary"!
To look in the Mirror and see the Cyclops staring Back at you across the
Horizon of the Waters!
What good is your energy if it doesn't coexist with other energy!
What happens when the Immutable Force, meets the Immovable Object?
When Matter and Anti Matter Collide!
Ahlm Sallah!
slider
> You get what you invoke.
### - smile, i trust you fully considered all that when you 'invoked' slider
by crossposting haha ;-)
Kaydpn
Nuts tho some ppl think you are due to your 'eloquence', I actually
agree with this <3
xoxoxoo
--
Kaydpn
Exspurt-rofl-naughty naughty:P
<3
xoxoxoxoo
--
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
Tom wrote:
So you think!
Kaydon
>
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 2:28 pm, Sidney Lambe <evergr...@alt.religion.wicca>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Talk sure is cheap. I will bet my life that this clown, HG,
> > > can't make a bird fly with the superstitious nonsense he
> > > calls "magick".
> >
> > Yet birds fly. How does Sid know HG is not responsible for this?
> >
> > Calling one belief "true" and another "superstitious nonsense" is
> > meaningless unless one can demonstrate that the "true" one works no
> > matter what you believe and that the "superstitious nonsense" never
> > works no matter what you believe. So, if you begin with an
> > assertion that belief itself makes something true, no such
> > demonstration of falsity is possible.
> >
> > > No, fool. If you believe you have 4 arms, it does not mean
> > > you have 4 arms.
> > >
> > > It means that you THINK you do.
> >
> > So if Sid believes his beliefs create reality, that doesn't mean his
> > beliefs create reality. It only means he thinks they do.
>
> So you think!
I think that that could maybe be possibly be true. What do you think??
<3
xoxoxoxoo
--
Sidney Lambe
wrote:
> Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole wrote:
[delete]
Oh my. The fluffy-bunny, new-age airhad and the escapee from the
insane asylum are talking at each other.
Yeh. "at" each other. Neither of them can actually communicate.
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
Sidney Lambe looked into his Mirror and looking upon himself in vision
wrote:
> On alt.religion.wicca, Kaydon <kaydon...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole wrote:
> [delete]
>
> Oh my. The fluffy-bunny, new-age airhad and the escapee from the
> insane asylum are talking at each other.
>
> Yeh. "at" each other. Neither of them can actually communicate.
You are not worth the effort "S.I.D.'S. are worse than any Hylic ever
thought of being!!!!!!