Re: Wiccan Basics
Evergreen
> Question: Why is Wicca a religion?
>
> Answer: Wiccans believe that nature is divine and goddesses are equal
> and complementary to gods. Wiccans also believe that nature is divided
> into 5 elements. Spirit, Air, Fire, Water and Earth as represented by
> its religious symbol the encircled pentagram. As daughters and sons of
> the gods, Wiccans work with these elements during magickal rituals.
> Because Wicca contains gods and rituals, it is a religion.
>
Answer: Wicca isn't a religion. Religions are based on the teachings of
remarkable people.
Wicca is based on the work of shoddy amateur scholars.
You wouldn't try to learn to play the piano by taking lessons from
someone who couldn't play the piano. And you shouldn't take lessons
in magick from people who can't demonstrate any.
Like "ren".
> Question: What is the difference between Wicca and witchcraft?
>
> Answer: Wicca is a religion and witchcraft, according to some, is a
> magickal practice. Witchcraft with a capital 'W', according to others,
> is the union of Pagan folklore religions that endured and survived
> Christianity in Western Europe. Wicca is new. Formalized in 1939 with
> founder Gerald Gardner's published papers. In 1953, with the induction
> of Doreen Valiente, Wicca's birth was complete. Just because Wicca is
> a new religion, makes it no less valid than the most ancient of
> religions.
Answer: Witchcraft is real magick. Wicca is theatrical psuedo-magick.
>
> Question: What is The Wiccan Rede?
>
> Answer: A rede is a guideline. It is not a law that Wiccans are
> required to follow. It is simply a suggestion that when a Wiccan
> performs magick, that he or she considers the greater good. Even
> enemies are seen as those who are sick and need healing. Here are the
> guidelines. "Treat others the way you wish to be treated." "Doing bad
> things will attract and bounce back compounded bad things into your
> life." "Do whatever you want with other consenting adults but don't
> hurt anyone." This does not mean that Wicca is a passive religion.
> Wicca in actual practice is self-defensive and mutually deterrent.
Answer: the so-called "Wiccan Rede" is hot air. Wiccans claim
that they do no harm while sending tax dollars to a government
that makes and finances brutal wars all over the planet. And
patronize the corporations that are trashing this planet.
>
> Question: Will I need to worship any Gods or Goddesses?
>
> Answer: Yes. Chose your patron goddess and or god. Though Wicca
> contains a healthy sense of doubt as to the existence of gods and
> Wiccans, much like Athiests, consider themselves to be gods and
> ultimately responsible for their own futures, we are believers in the
> divine as nature and expressed in nature. Everything is God.
Answer: Magicians do not worship anything. When you worship you give
your power and worth to another.
Anyone telling you that you must worship something really wants you
to worship them.
> Question: Will I have to perform spells?
>
> Answer: Yes. Wicca does not want lazy people who just pray for their
> four basic magical food groups. Acquiring Knowledge, Acquiring Power,
> Acquiring Love, and Acquiring Wealth. The Gods of Wicca help Wiccans
> who participate in magick with them. They also demand that you do
> physical things to help realize your needs. Wicca is a magickal
> religion. All Wiccans should learn and perform rituals as an
> observance of their religion.
Answer: You will need to perform theatrical and useless rituals
that charlatans like "ren" tell you are spells. And then you will
be encouraged to ignore the obvious fact that they accomplish
nothing but entertainment.
>
> Question: Is there scripture for me to abide by?
>
> Answer: As responsible Wiccans, you are required to write your own
> scripture. Call it "The Book of Shadows". Write your thoughts about
> yourself, the religion of Wicca, dreams, and spell experiments. There
> never was a collective and ancient Book of Shadows. This idea is
> offensive. Wicca is about personal spiritual growth through magick and
> harmonizing with the natural gods. It is not about blind faith and
> acceptance of the beliefs of others. Even mine. It is acceptable to
> copy from other Wiccan books. But copy it down in your own words and
> edit those words often.
Where's my shovel?
>
> Question: What is the most basic thing that I should know about Wicca.
That it is a role-playing social club for people who want
to become magicians but don't want to do the solitary and
disciplined work it requires.
So they dress like they think real witches dressed and talk like they
think real witches talked and so so forth.
They are real magicicians like they are real environmentalists.
(They are among the most environmentally destructive people on
the planet, with ecological footprints hundreds of times higher
than the planetary average.)
[delete]
Deleted a bunch of pure nonsense not even worth commenting on.
If you want to learn how to be a fake magician, "ren" and his
ilk will be happy to teach you how.
Sid
--
Sidney Lambe
Wiccan Priest and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com
Miguel Alberto
tried every kind of religion, after an atheist background, for example,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Unbaptism, Witchcraft, and Spiritualism.
But, when being interviewed by a federal bureaucrat, when I put down
Unbaptist as a religion, and having been asked what it was, he said,
"That's no religion! It's science!" So, I said, "If it's true it's
science; and, if it's false it's religion?
In the "Book of Shadows" by Lady Shebah it says, "It shall be male and
female, never male and male, or female and female; curse of the Old Ones
on those who make the attempt".
This sounds like the Sacrament of Unbaptism, recommitting the "eating of
the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil", as Adam and Eve actually
did.
There is a good exchange of opposite polarities, and its stimulates the
muscarinic nervous system to wake up the brain to perinatal matrix two
(see http://www.holotropic.com ), the "knowledge of good and evil" and
much magickal power.
Tehiru
> undisprovable
Did you just make up a new word?
Ato_Zee
On 15-Dec-2009, Tehiru <tehiru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > � � �undisprovable
>
> Did you just make up a new word?
Looks like it
there is provable, that which can be proved.
disprovable, that which can be disproved
so is undisprovable the negation of disprovable
and the same as provable?
Or may be the intent was to convey, can be
neither proved nor disproved?
.
Tom
When it comes to being damned with faint praise, to assert one's
religion is "undisprovable" does the job nicely. One could assert
anything about metaphysical or supernatural events or condition and
never be disproved. The devil wears pink galoshes, Jehovah lives in
my underwear drawer. Anything. It's a pretty low stardard of
credulity to believe something simply because you can't disprove it.
Ato_Zee
On 15-Dec-2009, Tom <dant...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The devil wears pink galoshes,
No he doesn't, everyone knows the devil wears
size 17 sneakers from Abercrombie & Fitch
(just like the Abominable Snowman).
Evergreen
> Before I came upon undisprovable tenets of Christianity,
You really _are_ lost.
There are about 25,000 officially recognized denominations of
Christianity in the world today, many of them not even recognizable
as the same religion. Almost all of them believe they are the only
real Christians.
Which denomination's 'undisprovable tenets' are you referring to, fool?
Jesus was a genuine "Master". Christianity, most versions of which
ignore most of what he taught, are spiritually poisonous garbage.
[delete]
Tom
> On 15-Dec-2009, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > The devil wears pink galoshes,
>
> No he doesn't, everyone knows the devil wears
> size 17 sneakers from Abercrombie & Fitch
> (just like the Abominable Snowman).
Another undisprovable claim.
Tom
>
> There are about 25,000 officially recognized denominations of
> Christianity in the world today,
I wonder who Sid thinks is the official in charge of recognizing
Christian denominations.
> many of them not even recognizable
> as the same religion.
Sid thinks that a denomination can be recognized when its
unrecognizable. And "officially", too!
> Which denomination's 'undisprovable tenets' are you referring to, fool?
>
> Jesus was a genuine "Master".Christianity, most versions of which
> ignore most of what he taught, are spiritually poisonous garbage.
An undisprovable tenet of Sid's unofficial and unrecognizable
undenomination.
Tehiru
> When it comes to being damned with faint praise, to assert one's
> religion is "undisprovable" does the job nicely. One could assert
> anything about metaphysical or supernatural events or condition and
> never be disproved. The devil wears pink galoshes, Jehovah lives in
> my underwear drawer. Anything. It's a pretty low stardard of
> credulity to believe something simply because you can't disprove it.
Absolutely. Now Tom, since you cannot absolutely disprove that I did
not pass a gallstone this morning that turned out to be a 50ct
diamond, according to Sid you must now believe it with fervor!
Evergreen
Just dumped another post from Tom the retard.
I don't read articles from people who obviously
couldn't find their own assholes with a GPS unit.
I must have dumped over a thousand posts from
this retard.
Will he ever get a life?
Same for 'tehiru', who is proabaly tom's sockpuppet.
Sid
Miguel Alberto
accessible over the internet. It has always been as big as an
encyclopedia with many volumes.
The word "undisprovable" is in it. Another interesting word is "ephesy".
It comes from the Greek "ephesus" and means a combination of license and
excuse.
There are many non-English words for which there are no exact
translations. It may seem that there are sufficient translations but
there are differences.
"Ephesy" is like a license used as an excuse, and, an excuse used as a
license.
Tom
>
> Just dumped another post from Tom the retard.
Sid worries that I will ignore him if he doesn't encourage me.
Evergreen
Just dropped another post by "Tom" to me.
I am quite sure that the poor feeb actually believes
I read his articles.
Truth is I'd rather stick my head in a stopped up toilet
in a sleazy bar.
The Usenet is infested with retards like "Tom". One pities
them, one does not read their pathological articles.
Tom
>
> Just dropped another post by "Tom" to me.
>
> I am quite sure that the poor feeb actually believes
> I read his articles.
Heh. The things Sid is "quite sure" about...
For Sid, the reward is that I post, not that he reads what I post. He
craves my attention although he fears my message.
Tom
> There is a big English dictionary in London, England, probably
> accessible over the internet. It has always been as big as an
> encyclopedia with many volumes.
That "big English dictionary in London" is called the Oxford English
Dictionary.
> The word "undisprovable" is in it.
Is it? You didn't even know what words are on the cover, let alone
what words are contained inside them.
> There are many non-English words for which there are no exact
> translations.
"Undisprovable" is not a word in any other language than English
either.
Still, if you want to use it even though it's a word that makes people
laugh at you, feel free. After all, people are going to laugh at you
anyway for all the other crazy shit you spew forth.
But let's explore your argument of undisprovability. Are you saying
that any statement that cannot be disproved must be accepted as
proven?
Alrah
I think you both ought to take up football at a weekend or some other
such healthy activity... ah... men. Gotta love 'em.
Alrah
> On Dec 16, 3:42 am, gellie...@webtv.net (Miguel Alberto) wrote:
>
> > There is a big English dictionary in London, England, probably
> > accessible over the internet. It has always been as big as an
> > encyclopedia with many volumes.
>
> That "big English dictionary in London" is called the Oxford English
> Dictionary.
Doesn't Cambridge have it's own sciensee (made up word) one? Oxford -
the arts. Cambrdige - science. A philosophy professor is Master of
the Arts, even though all science owes it's origins to philosophy.
There is the British Museum in London, and the British Library with
tons of old and dusty tomes resides there too.
Perhaps he's thinking of the British Library Catalogue?
Tehiru
Of course I'm Tom's sockpuppet! So is Alrah, Erwin, Mika and Bassos.
Aside from me/us, you are the only person on the board. We are here
for your entertainment, to provide that continual reinforcement to
your feeble ego that you are a god in this universe.
Grow up. Why would Tom expend the effort to create a sockpuppet with a
different outlook, syntax and even IP address. For you?
For someone who never reads Tom's posts, you sure talk about him every
damn day. So how's that compulsion coming along?
Meltdarok
> On Dec 15, 11:42 pm, Evergreen<sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Same for 'tehiru', who is proabaly tom's sockpuppet.
>
>
> different outlook, syntax and even IP address. For you?
>
Because it's his hobby.
--
meltdarok
The careless mind makes problems where
there actually aren't any.
Then it struggles to change the world,
and not the mind itself.
Tom
> Tehiru wrote, On 12/16/2009 3:39 PM:
>
> > On Dec 15, 11:42 pm, Evergreen<sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> Same for 'tehiru', who is proabaly tom's sockpuppet.
>
> > Grow up. Why would Tom expend the effort to create a sockpuppet with a
> > different outlook, syntax and even IP address. For you?
>
> Because it's his hobby.
Actively participating in alt.magick is my hobby. Creating
sockpuppets is not my hobby. So why does Sid think I create sock-
puppets? Having convinced himself that he's the only real person amid
a collection of shadows, Sid simply hasn't got the social perceptivity
to recognize differences between people. So we all seem like the same
shadow-person to him.
Alrah
> On Dec 15, 11:42 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Same for 'tehiru', who is proabaly tom's sockpuppet.
>
> Of course I'm Tom's sockpuppet! So is Alrah,
I now have an astral dick too - and I intend to have the utmost fun
with it tonight. :D
Evergreen
> Tehiru wrote, On 12/16/2009 3:39 PM:
>> On Dec 15, 11:42 pm, Evergreen<sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> Same for 'tehiru', who is proabaly tom's sockpuppet.
>>
>>
>> Grow up. Why would Tom expend the effort to create a sockpuppet with a
>> different outlook, syntax and even IP address. For you?
>>
He really believes I read his posts. Like "Tom". Such cluelessness
is very common on the Usenet. The same cluelessness that allows
him to make a fool of himself with stupid questions like that.
>
> Because it's his hobby.
>
Exactly. He's a troll. He gets cheap feelings of superiority
by engaging in pointless deception and posting endless articles
that all sensible people ignore but he believes have such an
incredible impact that no one can resist reading them.
Trolls are the least credible people on the face of the planet,
yet they believe that everyone believes everything they say.
He could be "Tom". But it doesn't matter. They are both stupid
and ignorant and obnoxious. I don't need to know anything else
about them to justify dumping their posts unread.
Tehiru
> On alt.magick, Meltdarok <meltda...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Tehiru wrote, On 12/16/2009 3:39 PM:
> >> On Dec 15, 11:42 pm, Evergreen<sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>> Same for 'tehiru', who is proabaly tom's sockpuppet.
>
> >> Grow up. Why would Tom expend the effort to create a sockpuppet with a
> >> different outlook, syntax and even IP address. For you?
>
> He really believes I read his posts. Like "Tom". Such cluelessness
> is very common on the Usenet. The same cluelessness that allows
> him to make a fool of himself with stupid questions like that.
>
>
>
> > Because it's his hobby.
>
> Exactly. He's a troll. He gets cheap feelings of superiority
> by engaging in pointless deception and posting endless articles
> that all sensible people ignore but he believes have such an
> incredible impact that no one can resist reading them.
>
> Trolls are the least credible people on the face of the planet,
> yet they believe that everyone believes everything they say.
>
> He could be "Tom". But it doesn't matter. They are both stupid
> and ignorant and obnoxious. I don't need to know anything else
> about them to justify dumping their posts unread.
You are consistently the funniest person on this board. You even
quoted me, and then boast about how you don't read what I (or Tom, or
any of my other sockpuppets) write. Remember Sid, there isn't anyone
here but you. We are only figments of your imagination. But the humor
is all yours!
Tehiru
> I now have an astral dick too - and I intend to have the utmost fun
> with it tonight. :D
Beware Evergreen, now Alrah/Tehiru/Tom/Bassos has a new sockpuppet!
Literally!
Absorbed
> On alt.magick, Meltdarok <melt...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Tehiru wrote, On 12/16/2009 3:39 PM:
>>> On Dec 15, 11:42 pm, Evergreen<sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Same for 'tehiru', who is proabaly tom's sockpuppet.
>>>
>>> Grow up. Why would Tom expend the effort to create a sockpuppet with a
>>> different outlook, syntax and even IP address. For you?
>>>
>
> He really believes I read his posts. Like "Tom".
Let me explain this simply so even a simpleton like yourself can
understand:
Tom replies to you stating that you read his posts.
You then reply to another post saying that Tom believes you read his
replies.
How do you know that Tom believes you read his posts? It is because
you've been reading his posts.
You've accidentally let slip that you know that Tom believes you read
his posts. This is because you're too inattentive to realise what your
words reveal.
Tom
>
> by engaging in pointless deception and posting endless articles