The Old Religion
Sidney Lambe
member of all religions are parishioners (or laypersons, etc.),
they are not priests. Priests are members of the clergy. In every
true religion they have to study for years to attain this status
and office.
To call every Wiccan a 'priest' is to render the term
meaningless. It is a foolish and deceptive practice.
Wicca claims to be the reincarnation of the Old Religion but it
most certainly is not.
Only the New Religions have gods and goddesses, and priests and
priestesses (which are supposedly much more knowledgable than
ordinary people and in close contact with the supposed gods and
goddesses and can intervene with them on behalf of ordinary
people). Only the New Religions assign magickal/creative power to
supernatural beings exterior to the Self. Only the New Religions
worship.
Gerald Gardner didn't know anything about the Old Religion. He
knew a little about a religion that was older than Christianity,
but so is Judaism, by thousands of years.
http://www.bcholmes.org/wicca/gardner.html
The "Old Religion" wasn't even a religion. During that period of
humanity's history, religion and science and culture were one and
the same thing.
People knew they were magickal beings living in a magickal
universe, just as young children still know that today (as well
as certain tiny cultures isolated from this one).
They knew that they created their own realities with their
beliefs/spells, individually and jointly, in cooperation with
the rest of Nature. They knew that their existences, and the
existence of everything, were Blessed. That all beings were
Innocent. They knew that they were spiritual beings having and
earthly experience. That Nature was supernatural. They did not
worship anything, because worship is giving your power and worth
away to something else.
Wicca as stands is an artificial _New_ Religion, not the 'Old
Religion' reincarnated.
Sid
--
AKA "Evergreen" a Wiccan Priest
and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com
sarchasm
altar:
>
> First of all, the ordinary Wiccan is not a priest.
> meaningless. It is a foolish and deceptive practice.
>
"Took all day. The first time through the ritual didn't go well and
I didn't get a name, so I moved to another location [in the woods] and did
it all
over.
I am now the Ordained Wiccan Priest "Evergreen"."
>
Sid -- AKA "Evergreen" a Wiccan Priest
[after a one night, insincere shake 'n bake rite]
ren
> First of all, the ordinary Wiccan is not a priest. The ordinary
> member of all religions are parishioners (or laypersons, etc.),
> they are not priests. Priests are members of the clergy. In every
> true religion they have to study for years to attain this status
> and office.
>
> To call every Wiccan a 'priest' is to render the term
> meaningless. It is a foolish and deceptive practice.
I disagree, Sidney EverGreen Lambe. Every Wiccan is a Priestess or
Priest who can speak to the Gods directly within dreams right now.
Let's ask all the other Wiccans on this newsgroup for their opinion.
I do not need any Wiccan Clergy member to speak to the Gods for me. I
am a Priest of Wicca myself.
Theoneflasehaddock
> First of all, the ordinary Wiccan is not a priest. The ordinary
> member of all religions are parishioners (or laypersons, etc.),
> they are not priests. Priests are members of the clergy. In every
> true religion they have to study for years to attain this status
> and office.
>
> To call every Wiccan a 'priest' is to render the term
> meaningless. It is a foolish and deceptive practice.
Personally, I've always thought of all priests as charlatans.
paul...@verizon.net
from Luther and Calvin, mostly. Protestantism got away from it fast,
too, falling right back into the trap of priestcraft in the Roman
model that it had tried to escape in its founding generation.
You may be conflating priesthood and ministry - a modern cultural
mindset that catches lots of people out.
Evergreen
Learn to use a newsreader.
Nobody looking at your article has any idea what you are talking
about or who you are talking to because there's no quoted text
and no attribution line.
All newsreaders do this right out of the box, so-to-speak, so
something is wrong there.
If I see another malformed, unintelligible article like this I will killfile you.
http://groups.google.com/group/news.software.readers/msg/e245c6942e0f3b59
Sid
--
Noinden
Shhh don't quote Uncle Gerry at Sidney ;)
Oh and speaking as a non wiccan Pagan. No not all of us are "priests"
but none of us need someone to tell us the will of our choosen deity.
Evergreen
> paul...@verizon.net <paul...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> The priesthood of all believers is certainly a new concept, coming
>> from Luther and Calvin, mostly. Protestantism got away from it fast,
>> too, falling right back into the trap of priestcraft in the Roman
>> model that it had tried to escape in its founding generation.
>>
>> You may be conflating priesthood and ministry - a modern cultural
>> mindset that catches lots of people out.
>
> Learn to use a newsreader.
>
> Nobody looking at your article has any idea what you are talking
> about or who you are talking to because there's no quoted text
> and no attribution line.
>
> All newsreaders do this right out of the box, so-to-speak, so
> something is wrong there.
>
> If I see another malformed, unintelligible article like this I will killfile you.
Regretfully, I should note. Your comments are always interesting.
(Once I figure out who and what you are responding to.)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/news.software.readers/msg/e245c6942e0f3b59
There are many useful links there concerning the use of newsreaders.
Hope
> paulh...@verizon.net <paulh...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > The priesthood of all believers is certainly a new concept, coming
> > from Luther and Calvin, mostly. Protestantism got away from it fast,
> > too, falling right back into the trap of priestcraft in the Roman
> > model that it had tried to escape in its founding generation.
>
> > You may be conflating priesthood and ministry - a modern cultural
> > mindset that catches lots of people out.
>
> Learn to use a newsreader.
>
> Nobody looking at your article has any idea what you are talking
> about or who you are talking to because there's no quoted text
> and no attribution line.
>
> All newsreaders do this right out of the box, so-to-speak, so
> something is wrong there.
>
> If I see another malformed, unintelligible article like this I will killfile you.
>
Oooooh, the ultimate threat! Don't worry, paulh, Sidneystone spends
more time taking people out of his killfiles and reading them and then
posting an explanation of how and why he did it than he does leaving
them in the killfile. It's actually a mark of his special favor and
interest.
Evergreen
> On Jan 29, 4:44=A0am, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> First of all, the ordinary Wiccan is not a priest. The ordinary
>> member of all religions are parishioners (or laypersons, etc.),
>> they are not priests. Priests are members of the clergy. In every
>> true religion they have to study for years to attain this status
>> and office.
>>
>> To call every Wiccan a 'priest' is to render the term
>> meaningless. It is a foolish and deceptive practice.
>
> I disagree, Sidney EverGreen Lambe.
> Every Wiccan is a Priestess or Priest who can speak to the Gods
> directly within dreams right now.
There you go again, posting absurdities and expecting to be taken
seriously.
The so-called 'Wiccan Gods' are a fiction invented by Gerald Gardner.
How can someone speak to ficticious gods?
> Let's ask all the other Wiccans on this newsgroup for their opinion.
Oh sure. And if they all agree with you the absurdities simply become
reality.
You are a fool. Anyone who takes you seriously is a fool.
>
> I do not need any Wiccan Clergy member to speak to the Gods for me. I
> am a Priest of Wicca myself.
So am I. But I still can't speak to gods that don't exist.
If you can, I suggest that you seek the help of a mental health
professional in the very near future.
Becoming a Wiccan 'Priest' is a matter of completing a silly
ritual based on fictional psuedo-magickal assumptions.
Supposedly talking to supposed gods is not "old religion", it is "new
religion".
It's what the Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Judaists and their
ilk do.
Real students of the "old religion" don't look to fictional gods to
blame and praise otherwise foist creative responsibillity on.
They look to their own creative powers and knowledge. The ones
that have been suppressed by ignorant fools like you throughout
the ages telling us that all power and worth dwell in some
supposed god or another.
Sid
--
Evergreen
> On Jan 28, 8:01=A0pm, ren <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 4:44=A0am, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > First of all, the ordinary Wiccan is not a priest. The ordinary
>> > member of all religions are parishioners (or laypersons, etc.),
>> > they are not priests. Priests are members of the clergy. In every
>> > true religion they have to study for years to attain this status
>> > and office.
>>
>> > To call every Wiccan a 'priest' is to render the term
>> > meaningless. It is a foolish and deceptive practice.
>>
>> I disagree, Sidney EverGreen Lambe. Every Wiccan is a Priestess or
>> Priest who can speak to the Gods directly within dreams right now.
>> Let's ask all the other Wiccans on this newsgroup for their opinion.
>>
>> I do not need any Wiccan Clergy member to speak to the Gods for me. I
>> am a Priest of Wicca myself.
>
> Shhh don't quote Uncle Gerry at Sidney ;)
>
> Oh and speaking as a non wiccan Pagan. No not all of us are "priests"
None of the neo-pagans are priests. There isn't enough to their
self-indulgent psuedo-religions to create real priests. You can learn
everything there is to know about them in a week.
And a real pagan from the past wouldn't have any idea what any of
us are talking about or doing.
> but none of us need someone to tell us the will of our choosen deity.
Of course you don't. Your "chosen deity" tells you whatever you want
hear. How could it do otherwise when it exists only in your own
imagination?
Who do you think you are fooling with twisted reasoning like this?
Oh yeh. Yourself.
Sid
--
Theoneflasehaddock
I've never had any trouble speaking to Gods that don't exist. My
problem is they never fucking answer. Pricks.
Noinden
You really are not up with the play. There are plenty of neopagan
clergy. The OBOD, Reclaiming, ADF, SOA, Cherry Hill seminary, Henge of
Keltria, and many other sizable national and international groups all
have legally recognized clergy programs. This translates to the fact
that they are able to LEGALLY perform the role they claim. Many
smaller groups can as well. I live near one (Circle Sanctuary).
This is just the legal side of it. Spiritually there are many pagan
scholars out there who can also fill the role. More so than most small
abrahamic sects. The thing about neopaganism is that if you suck at
the job you claim, no one stays long. This is why a certain publisher
has so many one hit (or two hit) wonders. None the less there are a
large number of skilled, and educated indviduals out there who do fill
the roll of clergy.
Oh enlighten me on my twisted reasoning? Go on do tell.
I am a hard polytheist. A neopagna Druid, and a Celtic
Reconstructionsist. In this I do not claim the role of clergy. I am
not qualified. Though if I took the time off from having a life
outside of work, I could. I hold a PhD in chemistry, and work in the
pharma industry. The idea of study does not scare me. I just do not
feel the calling to clergy. I am sure others here will tell you what I
do feel the calling too.
All I have seen is attacks. No philosophy, no logic, no reason. But
“straw men” or perhaps “straw women” as well.
Simply put.
Put up or shut up.
On Jan 30, 4:58 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Shhh don't quote Uncle Gerry at Sidney ;)
>
> > Oh and speaking as a non wiccan Pagan. No not all of us are "priests"
>
> None of the neo-pagans are priests. There isn't enough to their
> self-indulgent psuedo-religions to create real priests. You can learn
> everything there is to know about them in a week.
>
> And a real pagan from the past wouldn't have any idea what any of
> us are talking about or doing.
>
> > but none of us need someone to tell us the will of our chosen deity.
>
> Of course you don't. Your "chosen deity" tells you whatever you want
> hear. How could it do otherwise when it exists only in your own
> imagination?
>
> Who do you think you are fooling with twisted reasoning like this?
>
> Oh yeh. Yourself.
>
> Sid
>
> --
> Wiccan 'Priest' and Apprentice Magicianhttp://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
> usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hope
> I am a hard polytheist.
Hello, Noinden. This was an interesting and informative post; thank
you. It's always nice to see objective information about these
topics, since I am ignorant about so very many things. *S*
For example, although familiar with the concepts of separate, distinct
gods/goddesses, as opposed to deities representing aspects of one
divine entity or force, I had never actually heard the term "hard
polytheist." If you have the time and are so inclined, would you be
willing to share why you chose this over "soft" polytheism? Or
perhaps I'm assuming too much to even call it a choice... Anyway, I
would appreciate any information you feel like sharing. I have done
some preliminary research and will continue, but I much prefer the
richness of someone's personal experience.
Noinden
Hard polytheism is the belief (and I hold this) that ALL deities are
unique and separate. This of course includes the God of the Abrahamic
faiths. It also follows that no deity is supreme.
Soft Polythiesm has a couple of forms. That there are many deities but
they have different forms in different cultures. For example Lug in
Ireland is the same is Lugus in Gaul who is the same as Llew in the
British tradition. But it also might be even more culturally blending.
Lugus and Odin are somewhat similar thus they are the same. The most
extreme is that All Gods and Goddess are aspects of the whole Universe
and thus one or two (Dualism). Wicca in it’s early days was Dualistic.
All Gods are one ALL goddess are One. Druidism tends to be
polytheistic. CR’s like myself tend to be hard polytheistic.
No path is correct.
My own UPG (Unverified Personal Gnosis) is that they are all different
and unique. I have “talked” with both Odin and Lug and they are not
the same.
Evergreen
> On Jan 30, 4:58 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Shhh don't quote Uncle Gerry at Sidney ;)
>>
>> > Oh and speaking as a non wiccan Pagan. No not all of us are "priests"
>>
>> None of the neo-pagans are priests. There isn't enough to their
>> self-indulgent psuedo-religions to create real priests. You can learn
>> everything there is to know about them in a week.
>>
>> And a real pagan from the past wouldn't have any idea what any of
>> us are talking about or doing.
>>
>> > but none of us need someone to tell us the will of our chosen deity.
>>
>> Of course you don't. Your "chosen deity" tells you whatever you want
>> hear. How could it do otherwise when it exists only in your own
>> imagination?
>>
>> Who do you think you are fooling with twisted reasoning like this?
>>
>> Oh yeh. Yourself.
>>
>> Sid
>>
>> --
>> Wiccan 'Priest' and Apprentice Magicianhttp://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
>> usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Sid old bean
>
> You really are not up with the play. There are plenty of neopagan
> clergy. The OBOD, Reclaiming, ADF, SOA, Cherry Hill seminary, Henge of
> Keltria, and many other sizable national and international groups all
> have legally recognized clergy programs. This translates to the fact
> that they are able to LEGALLY perform the role they claim. Many
> smaller groups can as well. I live near one (Circle Sanctuary).
So some group of neo-pagans gets together and makes up a bunch
more stuff they think sounds and looks mysterious and magickal
(like Gerald Gardner did) and they find a building someplace
and have people come and memorize the stuff they created and
and teach them some organizational skills and give them clergy
certificates.
So what? They still don't know anything about magick. They are
just better at pretending they do than the average Wiccan.
As for "LEGALLY", what the hell does that mean in this context?
Nothing. Any group of loons can create a religion about anything.
There are over 4200 officially recognized religions on the planet
at this time.
>
> This is just the legal side of it.
You like that word "legal" and seem to think it means something.
It doesn't.
The Moonies are legal too.
> Spiritually there are many pagan
> scholars out there who can also fill the role. More so than most small
> abrahamic sects.
Scholars are wonderful. But what can they have do regarding a religion
that was invented in the 1950's by someone who cobbled it together from
a few experiences with a so-called "witches coven" and readings in
ceremonial and masonic "magick"?
Of course, any good scholar can run his mouth forever on anything...
> The thing about neopaganism is that if you suck at
> the job you claim, no one stays long. This is why a certain publisher
> has so many one hit (or two hit) wonders. None the less there are a
> large number of skilled, and educated indviduals out there who do fill
> the roll of clergy.
Skilled at WHAT! Keeping a social organization that has a few theatrical
rituals to its name functioning?
Yep.
>
> Oh enlighten me on my twisted reasoning? Go on do tell.
>
> I am a hard polytheist. A neopagna Druid, and a Celtic
> Reconstructionsist.
So what? That just means you've memorized a bunch of useless
psuedo-metaphysical crap that's good for nothing but playing
the role of a wizard in a C fantasy movie.
None of the people you think you are emulating (from the distant
past) would recognize anything you do or say.
> In this I do not claim the role of clergy. I am
> not qualified. Though if I took the time off from having a life
> outside of work, I could. I hold a PhD in chemistry, and work in the
> pharma industry. The idea of study does not scare me. I just do not
> feel the calling to clergy. I am sure others here will tell you what I
> do feel the calling too.
>
>
> All I have seen is attacks. No philosophy, no logic, no reason. But
>straw men or perhaps straw women as well.
>
> Simply put.
>
> Put up or shut up.
I'll say anything I want and you'll live with it.
The 'neo-pagan' psuedo-religions are self-indulgent fictions created
by fools who think they can make up reality as they go along.
Their relationship to any prior cultural practices are in name only.
They allow the psuedo-progressive element in Western society to
go to the new-age equivalent of Methodist church services and
feel all spiritually superior and enlightened.
And to witness entertaining rituals and party.
None of the people involved in any of them know anything at
all about magick. They just think they do and try to make
others think they do.
Evergreen
>
[delete]
> No path is correct.
A path that is based upon truth is correct.
A path that is based upon untruth is not correct.
For example: A path that was in part or whole based upon the idea
that you were going to live in your current physical body forever
would be not correct.
Your current physical body is going to die and return to the earth.
> My own UPG (Unverified Personal Gnosis) is that they are all different
> and unique. I have talked with both Odin and Lug and they are not
> the same.
You've talked to false gods created by dead cultures? Possible.
When you pass on information from them that's good for anything
but making you look like you are spiritually advanced (to the
gullible) I'll take that claim seriously.
Noinden
> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You really are not up with the play. There are plenty of neopagan
> > clergy. The OBOD, Reclaiming, ADF, SOA, Cherry Hill seminary, Henge of
> > Keltria, and many other sizable national and international groups all
> > have legally recognized clergy programs. This translates to the fact
> > that they are able to LEGALLY perform the role they claim. Many
> > smaller groups can as well. I live near one (Circle Sanctuary).
>
> So some group of neo-pagans gets together and makes up a bunch
> more stuff they think sounds and looks mysterious and magickal
> (like Gerald Gardner did) and they find a building someplace
> and have people come and memorize the stuff they created and
> and teach them some organizational skills and give them clergy
> certificates.
Sid old bean, once again you are using broad brush strokes. You assume
all neoPagans are Wiccans to begin with. I’m not. Most of the posters
here are not either. Further. You assume that Wicca began and will end
with Gardner Sanders and co. It evolves. Much as if you were looking
at an OS, DOS is about as accurate to OS as Gardnerian circa 1954 is
to neoPaganism today.
Thus you are mistaken
> So what? They still don't know anything about magick. They are
> just better at pretending they do than the average Wiccan.
Ahh you have to spell it magick too. Nice for you. I prefer Draiocht
myself.
> As for "LEGALLY", what the hell does that mean in this context?
It has every thing to do with this context. You do not even know about
the groups I listed. One or two of them would best be described as
“wiccan” or “eclectic Pagan”. However being legally able to act as
clergy, is in this day and age a sign of something. You just can not
wrap your tinny universe around this. Hell you have more of a
Talesinian Universe than David did!
> Nothing. Any group of loons can create a religion about anything.
> There are over 4200 officially recognized religions on the planet
> at this time.
>
>
>
> > This is just the legal side of it.
>
> You like that word "legal" and seem to think it means something.
> It doesn't.
It does
> The Moonies are legal too.
Then go attack them in their groups.
> > Spiritually there are many pagan
> > scholars out there who can also fill the role. More so than most small
> > abrahamic sects.
>
> Scholars are wonderful. But what can they have do regarding a religion
> that was invented in the 1950's by someone who cobbled it together from
> a few experiences with a so-called "witches coven" and readings in
Neopaganism is a Mystery religion. It requires people to take
responsibility for their own faith. Most neoPagans do not. However
most is not all. Thus your argument is not valid. Again you return to
Uncle Gerry. His impact was minimal. Starhawk, Bonewitts, Carr-Gom etc
have had a bigger impact than Gerald did. Simply because they have
founded groups that have large memberships, rigourous standards, and
would not accept you into the fold :)
> Of course, any good scholar can run his mouth forever on anything...
>
> > The thing about neopaganism is that if you suck at
> > the job you claim, no one stays long. This is why a certain publisher
> > has so many one hit (or two hit) wonders. None the less there are a
> > large number of skilled, and educated individuals out there who do fill
> > the roll of clergy.
>
> Skilled at WHAT! Keeping a social organization that has a few theatrical
> rituals to its name functioning?
>
> Yep.
Again you have no idea of which you speak. I listed several groups
that have existed for in some cases Decades. Neopaganism is new, and
that in of it’s self is a good sign they are doing something right.
>
>
> > Oh enlighten me on my twisted reasoning? Go on do tell.
>
> > I am a hard polytheist. A neopagna Druid, and a Celtic
> > Reconstructionsist.
>
> So what? That just means you've memorized a bunch of useless
> psuedo-metaphysical crap that's good for nothing but playing
> the role of a wizard in a C fantasy movie.
What have I memorized? You know nothing of my faith, or of my
trainign.
> None of the people you think you are emulating (from the distant
> past) would recognize anything you do or say.
Neopagan Druid , Celtic Recon… words you don’t understand, thus
attack.
> > In this I do not claim the role of clergy. I am
> > not qualified. Though if I took the time off from having a life
> > outside of work, I could. I hold a PhD in chemistry, and work in the
> > pharma industry. The idea of study does not scare me. I just do not
> > feel the calling to clergy. I am sure others here will tell you what I
> > do feel the calling too.
>
> > All I have seen is attacks. No philosophy, no logic, no reason. But
> >straw men or perhaps straw women as well.
>
> > Simply put.
>
> > Put up or shut up.
>
> I'll say anything I want and you'll live with it.
Ahh troll defense number 4. “Make me”. I will give the traditional
response. Come to Milwaukee and say that to my face.
> The 'neo-pagan' psuedo-religions are self-indulgent fictions created
Neopaganism is a recongnised faith. Hence you score epic Fail!
> Their relationship to any prior cultural practices are in name only.
Again you miss the point.
> They allow the psuedo-progressive element in Western society to
> go to the new-age equivalent of Methodist church services and
> feel all spiritually superior and enlightened.
Oooo an upset little bigot. Methodists pick on you?
> And to witness entertaining rituals and party.
>
Go on tell me how I personally worship. Or Ren, or Aine? Know the
differences?
> None of the people involved in any of them know anything at
> all about magick. They just think they do and try to make
> others think they do.
Ahh “magick” yeah that is the be all and end all of the Universe for
you. I much prefer Imbas, or having a real life. I can turn cheap
chemical components into expensive Pharmaceuticles. That is my job.
It’s not Magic. I don’t need to feel special by adding a “ye olde” K
to a word either.
Imbas is something important. It sets a “fire in the mind” now that is
real Draiocht.
Evergreen
> On Feb 2, 2:42 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You really are not up with the play. There are plenty of neopagan
>> > clergy. The OBOD, Reclaiming, ADF, SOA, Cherry Hill seminary, Henge of
>> > Keltria, and many other sizable national and international groups all
>> > have legally recognized clergy programs. This translates to the fact
>> > that they are able to LEGALLY perform the role they claim. Many
>> > smaller groups can as well. I live near one (Circle Sanctuary).
>>
>> So some group of neo-pagans gets together and makes up a bunch
>> more stuff they think sounds and looks mysterious and magickal
>> (like Gerald Gardner did) and they find a building someplace
>> and have people come and memorize the stuff they created and
>> and teach them some organizational skills and give them clergy
>> certificates.
>
>
> Sid old bean, once again you are using broad brush strokes. You assume
> all neoPagans are Wiccans to begin with.
No. I just talk about Wicca because this a Wiccan group.
But there is very little difference between any of these
artificial "neo-pagan" psuedo-religions in the sense that they
are all based upon guesswork about dead cultures at best.
And nothing of what they "teach" is worth anything beyond entertainment
and the illusion of 'spiritual'/magickal accomplishment.
> I am not. Most of the posters
> here are not either.
I already knew that. It's been posted here many times.
> Further. You assume that Wicca began and will end
> with Gardner Sanders and co. It evolves. Much as if you were looking
> at an OS, DOS is about as accurate to OS as Gardnerian circa 1954 is
> to neoPaganism today.
Nonsense evolves into greater nonsense. Here's another computer analogy,
we are looking at a variation of "garbage in, garbage out".
>
> Thus you are mistaken
No. I am not.
>
>> So what? They still don't know anything about magick. They are
>> just better at pretending they do than the average Wiccan.
>
>
> Ahh you have to spell it magick too. Nice for you. I prefer Draiocht
> myself.
>
>> As for "LEGALLY", what the hell does that mean in this context?
>
> It has every thing to do with this context. You do not even know about
> the groups I listed. One or two of them would best be described as
wiccan or eclectic Pagan. However being legally able to act as
> clergy, is in this day and age a sign of something. You just can not
> wrap your tinny universe around this. Hell you have more of a
> Talesinian Universe than David did!
>
>> Nothing. Any group of loons can create a religion about anything.
>> There are over 4200 officially recognized religions on the planet
>> at this time.
>>
>> > This is just the legal side of it.
>>
>> You like that word "legal" and seem to think it means something.
>> It doesn't.
>
> It does
>
>> The Moonies are legal too.
>
> Then go attack them in their groups.
Typical of people who are standing on very shaky ground, you
interpret any criticism as an "attack".
This is a cheap way of suppressing criticism.
Won't work with me.
[delete]
ren
Then why are you talking about Moonies, Sidney? BBDD also liked to
talk about the Moonies.
> I already knew that. It's been posted here many times.
> No. I am not.
Yes you are to infinity.
> Typical of people who are standing on very shaky ground, you
> interpret any criticism as an "attack".
Nobody is attacking you, Sidney. We're just playing with you.
> This is a cheap way of suppressing criticism.
Cheap ways for cheap people such as yourself.
> Won't work with me.
Yes it will work with you and you'll live with it. Furthermore, you'll
live with getting every offensive website you create either suspended
or DOS'd.
It sucks to be you, Sidney. I gave you and your crew 7 days to think
about it. Now it is time to mobilize the crew that I'm with.
Shadows all around you, Sidney.
Evergreen
The idiot runs his anus mouth again, and no doubt thinks
that he is impressing the hell out of everyone.
sarchasm
>
> Typical of people who are standing on very shaky ground, you
> interpret any criticism as an "attack".
>
> This is a cheap way of suppressing criticism.
>
No wonder sidney-sacrificial-lambe uses it almost as often as his
pseudo-killfile.
>
> Won't work with me.
>
It doesn't work when sid-sacrificial-lambe uses it on others either.
>
> Sid-sock
> --
> Wiccan 'Priest' [after a one-night shake 'n bake rite]
> and Apprentice Magician [dubiously claimed]
Hope
> "Evergreen" <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> trolled himself:
>
>
>
> > Typical of people who are standing on very shaky ground, you
> > interpret any criticism as an "attack".
>
> > This is a cheap way of suppressing criticism.
>
> No wonder sidney-sacrificial-lambe uses it almost as often as his
> pseudo-killfile.
*BUZZ* What's up, sar? Mind your fingers! You spelled "pseudo"
correctly. Sidneystone won't recognize it.
>
>
> > Won't work with me.
>
> It doesn't work when sid-sacrificial-lambe uses it on others either.
Hm...do you think he's a victim of Limp Wand Sidrome? ;-p
>
>
> > Sid-sock
> > --
> > Wiccan 'Priest' [after a one-night shake 'n bake rite]
> > and Apprentice Magician [dubiously claimed]
"Dubious" implies there is still a chance it might be true. Perhaps
you should revise. Just sayin'...
ren
You do not speak for all Wiccans. You were just self-initiated. You
see, we make decisions as a group. If many other Wiccans should agree
that an ordinary Wiccan is not a priest, then form your own coven of
Non-Priests and Non-Priestesses.
> member of all religions are parishioners (or laypersons, etc.),
> they are not priests. Priests are members of the clergy. In every
> true religion they have to study for years to attain this status
> and office.
So Christianity is a true religion? You are an elitist.
> priestesses (which are supposedly much more knowledgable than
You still don't have a spellchecker associated with VIM and SLRN. You
are such a UNIX expert, Sidney. No wonder they kicked you out of every
Linux forum you've ever been in.
> Wicca as stands is an artificial _New_ Religion, not the 'Old
> Religion' reincarnated.
If you have a problem with Wicca, then why don't you (self-
excommunicate in terms you can understand) self-Warlock yourself.
> Sid
>
> --
> AKA "Evergreen" a Wiccan Priest
> and Apprentice Magicianhttp://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
Noinden
> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sid old bean, once again you are using broad brush strokes. You assume
> > all neoPagans are Wiccans to begin with.
>
> No. I just talk about Wicca because this a Wiccan group.
No, in the next paragraph you lump all Neopagans into one. That is
impossible inside Wicca, even more so with neoPaganism and heathenism.
An Asatruar and CR bear less resemblence to your bog standard Eclectic
pagan than a baptist does to a Methodist. Further more inside Wicca,
Gardnerians and Alexandrians while simialr doe to the line of the BOS
from Gardner to Sanders are nothing likea Corellian or a member of
Circle Sanctuary. Thus the argument holds no water.
> But there is very little difference between any of these
> artificial "neo-pagan" psuedo-religions in the sense that they
> are all based upon guesswork about dead cultures at best.
Recognised religions old bean. The ADF, OBOD, Henge of Keltria,
Reclaiming, SOA etc all are recognised. Hence. No psuedo.
> And nothing of what they "teach" is worth anything beyond entertainment
> and the illusion of 'spiritual'/magickal accomplishment.
You and that k. Learn to come to the 21st century :P
> > I am not. Most of the posters
> > here are not either.
>
> I already knew that. It's been posted here many times.
Thus you have straw men arguments
> > Further. You assume that Wicca began and will end
> > with Gardner Sanders and co. It evolves. Much as if you were looking
> > at an OS, DOS is about as accurate to OS as Gardnerian circa 1954 is
> > to neoPaganism today.
>
> Nonsense evolves into greater nonsense. Here's another computer analogy,
> we are looking at a variation of "garbage in, garbage out".
Again with the Strawpeople.
>
> >> The Moonies are legal too.
>
> > Then go attack them in their groups.
>
> Typical of people who are standing on very shaky ground, you
> interpret any criticism as an "attack".
No I am encouraging you to logical honesty. If you have a problem with
them…. Go do something about it too.
Oh and I will take the “delete” as a plonk.Thus you loose.
Noinden
> > No. I just talk about Wicca because this a Wiccan group.
>
> Then why are you talking about Moonies, Sidney? BBDD also liked to
> talk about the Moonies.
>
> > I already knew that. It's been posted here many times.
> > No. I am not.
>
> Yes you are to infinity.
>
> > Typical of people who are standing on very shaky ground, you
> > interpret any criticism as an "attack".
>
> Nobody is attacking you, Sidney. We're just playing with you.
Speak for yourself. I am attacking his arguments, weak as they are!
ren
> > Nobody is attacking you, Sidney. We're just playing with you.
>
> Speak for yourself. I am attacking his arguments, weak as they are!
Well o.k.!
Noinden
Heh I just can not deal with the local Sid's so I am dealing with this
one. Some how it encroched into ARD, and it's not like we don't have
our own loons there (who encroach into ARW)
Noinden
> On Jan 29, 4:44 am, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > First of all, the ordinary Wiccan is not a priest. The ordinary
>
> You do not speak for all Wiccans. You were just self-initiated. You
> see, we make decisions as a group. If many other Wiccans should agree
> that an ordinary Wiccan is not a priest, then form your own coven of
> Non-Priests and Non-Priestesses.
Hey come on ren. You don't speak for all Wiccan's either unless you
have the worlds worst case of multiple personality disorder ;)
But your point is MORE valid than Sid's
Please don't do the "you are self initiated" crap however. I've seen
that elitist line (and no you are not using that) too often locally to
stomach that. Sanders and Gardner were self initiated too. Despite
stories. Oh yes I am reading too much Hutton I know
ren
> Heh I just can not deal with the local Sid's so I am dealing with this
> one. Some how it encroched into ARD, and it's not like we don't have
> our own loons there (who encroach into ARW)
I helped with your troll-boy BBDD (Andrew Thornton aka GoDaddy), who
turned out to be one of the main personalities of Encyclopedia
Dramatica. Getting rid of that troll involved legal threats by legal
authorities. That guy is a hard-core criminal hacker suspected of
working with domestic and foreign terrorists. He was just practicing
on ARD and floated over to ARW. He must be crazy drawing even more
government attention to himself.
I'm telling you, this guy thought he was invincible until he came here
and found us waiting. And it wasn't through hacking. It was magick.
Noinden
Sure, but long term destructives like McGrath and Connors still
lurk ;)
Oh and forgive me if I smirk at that last sentence beginning with
"And" and do not nod to much. It’s not the use of the k either.
ren
> Sure, but long term destructives like McGrath and Connors still
> lurk ;)
You mean the drunk guy who has threatened to murder well known Druids?
And o.k. I'll just admit that I use hack magick to read gmail
accounts.
Noinden
I mean the ex neonazi who theatened to murded well known druids AND
wiccans (the Farrar's and Boone) and Pagan philosophers (Brendan
Myers). Who called up various well known Druid leaders partners drunk
and randy. Yep McGrath.
ren
> I mean the ex neonazi who theatened to murded well known druids AND
> wiccans (the Farrar's and Boone) and Pagan philosophers (Brendan
> Myers). Who called up various well known Druid leaders partners drunk
> and randy. Yep McGrath.
Oh, that guy. Sorry, you'll need Bond, James Bond, to deal with him.
Ah, but that can be arranged.
Noinden
No I will need a large butterfly net I think ;) Try talking to the
Garda and local Gaelic traditionalists as to why there are almost NO
neopagan Druids in Eire. He is one of the causes.
Hope
> On Feb 2, 2:05 pm, Hope <holleratwal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 8:30 am, Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am a hard polytheist.
>
> > Hello, Noinden. This was an interesting and informative post; thank
> > you. It's always nice to see objective information about these
> > topics, since I am ignorant about so very many things. *S*
>
> > For example, although familiar with the concepts of separate, distinct
> > gods/goddesses, as opposed to deities representing aspects of one
> > divine entity or force, I had never actually heard the term "hard
> > polytheist." If you have the time and are so inclined, would you be
> > willing to share why you chose this over "soft" polytheism? Or
> > perhaps I'm assuming too much to even call it a choice... Anyway, I
> > would appreciate any information you feel like sharing. I have done
> > some preliminary research and will continue, but I much prefer the
> > richness of someone's personal experience.
>
> Hard polytheism is the belief (and I hold this) that ALL deities are
> unique and separate. This of course includes the God of the Abrahamic
> faiths. It also follows that no deity is supreme.
So you have no hierarchy in your hard polytheistic belief system?
Separate but equal. Hm. That's an interesting "assumption buster"
for me.
>
> Soft Polythiesm has a couple of forms. That there are many deities but
> they have different forms in different cultures. For example Lug in
> Ireland is the same is Lugus in Gaul who is the same as Llew in the
> British tradition.
> But it also might be even more culturally blending.
> Lugus and Odin are somewhat similar thus they are the same.
That doesn't seem a proper "ergo" to me, so I'm assuming I am not
following you correctly due to lack of background knowledge.
> The most
> extreme is that All Gods and Goddess are aspects of the whole Universe
> and thus one or two (Dualism). Wicca in it’s early days was Dualistic.
> All Gods are one ALL goddess are One. Druidism tends to be
> polytheistic. CR’s like myself tend to be hard polytheistic.
>
> No path is correct.
...for everyone, I'm certain you meant. It would be counterproductive
to choose a path I felt was "wrong." *lol* But I do seem to have an
easier time identifying what I *don't* want than what I *do.*
>
> My own UPG (Unverified Personal Gnosis) is that they are all different
> and unique. I have “talked” with both Odin and Lug and they are not
> the same.
IMO, that may or may not be a valid proof. I talked with myself
yesterday, and the me that I am talking to today is definitely
different. I *intended* it to be so. I have different tasks and
goals today. I can't imagine that the gods/goddesses are more limited
in this regard than we.
Noinden
> On Feb 2, 2:19 pm, Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hard polytheism is the belief (and I hold this) that ALL deities are
> > unique and separate. This of course includes the God of the Abrahamic
> > faiths. It also follows that no deity is supreme.
>
> So you have no hierarchy in your hard polytheistic belief system?
> Separate but equal. Hm. That's an interesting "assumption buster"
> for me.
My only heiracy is that I only show honor (directly) to the Tuatha De
Dannan and the Tuatha de Domman in particular I have affinity (she is
my Matron) with the Morrigan.
>
>
> > Soft Polythiesm has a couple of forms. That there are many deities but
> > they have different forms in different cultures. For example Lug in
> > Ireland is the same is Lugus in Gaul who is the same as Llew in the
> > British tradition.
> > But it also might be even more culturally blending.
> > Lugus and Odin are somewhat similar thus they are the same.
>
> That doesn't seem a proper "ergo" to me, so I'm assuming I am not
> following you correctly due to lack of background knowledge.
It is a common “tool” used by some. That all societies are the same.
Lugus (Gaul) has ravens, wolves, one eye, thus Odin who has Ravens and
wolves and one eye is the same. To that thinking. Never mind the
differences.
While both are indeed Indo-European “Sky gods” they are very different
as were the Gaulish and Germanic cultures.
> > The most
> > extreme is that All Gods and Goddess are aspects of the whole Universe
> > and thus one or two (Dualism). Wicca in it’s early days was Dualistic.
> > All Gods are one ALL goddess are One. Druidism tends to be
> > polytheistic. CR’s like myself tend to be hard polytheistic.
>
> > No path is correct.
>
> ...for everyone, I'm certain you meant. It would be counterproductive
> to choose a path I felt was "wrong." *lol* But I do seem to have an
> easier time identifying what I *don't* want than what I *do.*
I missed a word. No ONE path is correct. It’s all about personal
choices and paths.
>
>
> > My own UPG (Unverified Personal Gnosis) is that they are all different
> > and unique. I have “talked” with both Odin and Lug and they are not
> > the same.
>
> IMO, that may or may not be a valid proof. I talked with myself
> yesterday, and the me that I am talking to today is definitely
> different. I *intended* it to be so. I have different tasks and
> goals today. I can't imagine that the gods/goddesses are more limited
in this regard than we.
Yet many a pagan “orders” them about when they banish them from
circle.
Oh and just to throw this spanner in the works. Most CR’s like myself
do not work with the 4 elements or call circles. We work with land and
sea and sky. Fire is transformative but not an element, and we find
the sacred not create it ….
Evergreen
> On Jan 29, 4:44=A0am, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> First of all, the ordinary Wiccan is not a priest. The ordinary
>
> You do not speak for all Wiccans. You were just self-initiated. You
> see, we make decisions as a group. If many other Wiccans should agree
> that an ordinary Wiccan is not a priest, then form your own coven of
> Non-Priests and Non-Priestesses.
>
>> member of all religions are parishioners (or laypersons, etc.),
>> they are not priests. Priests are members of the clergy. In every
>> true religion they have to study for years to attain this status
>> and office.
>
> So Christianity is a true religion? You are an elitist.
>
>> priestesses (which are supposedly much more knowledgable than
>
> You still don't have a spellchecker associated with VIM and SLRN. You
> are such a UNIX expert, Sidney. No wonder they kicked you out of every
> Linux forum you've ever been in.
>
>> Wicca as stands is an artificial _New_ Religion, not the 'Old
>> Religion' reincarnated.
>
> If you have a problem with Wicca, then why don't you (self-
> excommunicate in terms you can understand) self-Warlock yourself.
This poor fool seems to actually believe that he is intimidating.
Well, what else can one expect from someone who claims that he
can scramble people's brains and turn them into his puppets with
magick?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/7645f9930048bea2
He simply isn't mentally competent.
Evergreen
> On Feb 2, 6:35 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Sid old bean, once again you are using broad brush strokes. You assume
>> > all neoPagans are Wiccans to begin with.
>>
>> No. I just talk about Wicca because this a Wiccan group.
>
>
> No, in the next paragraph you lump all Neopagans into one. That is
> impossible inside Wicca, even more so with neoPaganism and heathenism.
> An Asatruar and CR bear less resemblence to your bog standard Eclectic
> pagan than a baptist does to a Methodist. Further more inside Wicca,
> Gardnerians and Alexandrians while simialr doe to the line of the BOS
> from Gardner to Sanders are nothing likea Corellian or a member of
> Circle Sanctuary. Thus the argument holds no water.
You are missing my point completely (or pretending that you are).
Everything that all the 'neo-pagan' groups do is theatrical
nonsense based on snippets of history, anthropology, legend,
and myth, along with liberal doses of pure fiction, that
accomplishes nothing but entertainment and the illusion of
magickal accomplishment and spiritual advancement.
It's play-acting, basically.
Never seen a single 'neo-pagan' who could demonstrate any
benefits from his/her involvement in one of these faux religions
other than social: They have a good time partying with their
'neo-pagan' friends and like pretending that they are spiritually
avante-garde and have secret magickal powers.
I don't believe that any of these people are doing anything that
remotely resembles the practices of the people they claim to
be imitating (the ancient pagans). Nor do I believe they care.
They want to be magickally evolved without doing the solitary
work it requires. So they don the costumes and act out silly
fictional rituals and pretend that's all there is to it.
Evergreen
It wasn't either. He just realized that you were an idiot and
that no one here was interested in his message.
You have no magickal skills at all.
The garbage you think is magick wouldn't work even if you
mastered it, which you haven't.
Hope
pretend to some rarefied skill in determining why pretty much every
branch of religion and spirituality you have "studied" is garbage.
Alas, everything you post could be pulled in 15 minutes or less from
Google. And aside from your declarations of how foolish and pointless
it all is, you provide no evidence as to any logical process involved
in reaching your judgments. You operate pretty much from the "It's
crap because I say it's crap" premise, as if it is a given that your
authority is unassailable. It ain't.
But since you apparently believe you are the only one who has a handle
on what *true* spirituality is about, are you ever going to deign to
gift us with an example? Rather than yap about how no one else is a
master of anything, why don't you have a go at mastery yourself? Are
you planning on being the perpetual newbie apprentice of "magicK," or
are you actually going to learn enough to bring something to Show and
Tell?
We know you are not simply a fake, putting on a dog and pony show like
a poor actor in a B movie. That's everybody else *except* you! So
come on, sid, give up the goods. Stop being such a tease! Your
audience eagerly waits to be stunned!
sarchasm
> "EverUnReady" <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> You have no magickal skills at all.
>
> The garbage you think is magick wouldn't work even if you
> mastered it, which you haven't.
>
You posture here as the master of many different fields of study and
pretend to some rarefied skill in determining why pretty much every
branch of religion and spirituality you have "studied" is garbage.
Alas, everything you post could be pulled in 15 minutes or less from
Google. And aside from your declarations of how foolish and pointless
it all is, you provide no evidence as to any logical process involved
in reaching your judgments. You operate pretty much from the "It's
crap because I say it's crap" premise, as if it is a given that your
authority is unassailable. It ain't.
But since you apparently believe you are the only one who has a handle
on what *true* spirituality is about, are you ever going to deign to
gift us with an example? Rather than yap about how no one else is a
master of anything, why don't you have a go at mastery yourself? Are
you planning on being the perpetual newbie apprentice of "magicK," or
are you actually going to learn enough to bring something to Show and
Tell?
We know you are not simply a fake, putting on a dog and pony show like
a poor actor in a B movie. That's everybody else *except* you! So
come on, sid, give up the goods. Stop being such a tease! Your
audience eagerly waits to be stunned!
>
The only way sacrificial-sid could stun anyone would be with a taser. Or,
by giving up his lame 'respect mah aw-thority' sctick.
sarchasm
> "sarchasm" <sar.ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Evergreen" <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> trolled himself:
>
> > Typical of people who are standing on very shaky ground, you
> > interpret any criticism as an "attack".
>
> > This is a cheap way of suppressing criticism.
>
> No wonder sidney-sacrificial-lambe uses it almost as often as his
> pseudo-killfile.
*BUZZ* What's up, sar? Mind your fingers! You spelled "pseudo"
correctly. Sidneystone won't recognize it.
>
Sacrificial-sid wouldn't recognise sunlight during the daytime. Besides,
he's busy pretending to have "psuedo"-killfiled us to recognise the irony.
>
> > Won't work with me.
>
> It doesn't work when sid-sacrificial-lambe uses it on others either.
Hm...do you think he's a victim of Limp Wand Sidrome? ;-p
>
Even worse, he's fallen into the self-imposed trap of extreme delusional
hubris, from which he cannot escape.
>
> > Sid-sock
> > --
> > Wiccan 'Priest' [after a one-night shake 'n bake rite]
> > and Apprentice Magician [dubiously claimed]
>
>"Dubious" implies there is still a chance it might be true. Perhaps
>you should revise. Just sayin'...
>
"Dubious", in the sense of anyone could claim such a thing without
foundation and that nearly anyone could be as claimed, (were he not
trolling, as his posting history here shows).
Scarecrow
> First of all, the ordinary Wiccan is not a priest. The ordinary
> they are not priests. Priests are members of the clergy. In every
> true religion they have to study for years to attain this status
> and office.
>
> meaningless. It is a foolish and deceptive practice.
>
> Wicca claims to be the reincarnation of the Old Religion but it
> most certainly is not.
>
> Only the New Religions have gods and goddesses, and priests and
> priestesses (which are supposedly much more knowledgable than
> goddesses and can intervene with them on behalf of ordinary
> people). Only the New Religions assign magickal/creative power to
> supernatural beings exterior to the Self. Only the New Religions
> worship.
>
> Gerald Gardner didn't know anything about the Old Religion. He
> knew a little about a religion that was older than Christianity,
> but so is Judaism, by thousands of years.
>
> http://www.bcholmes.org/wicca/gardner.html
>
> The "Old Religion" wasn't even a religion. During that period of
> humanity's history, religion and science and culture were one and
> the same thing.
>
> People knew they were magickal beings living in a magickal
> universe, just as young children still know that today (as well
> as certain tiny cultures isolated from this one).
>
> They knew that they created their own realities with their
> beliefs/spells, individually and jointly, in cooperation with
> the rest of Nature. They knew that their existences, and the
> existence of everything, were Blessed. That all beings were
> Innocent. They knew that they were spiritual beings having and
> earthly experience. That Nature was supernatural. They did not
> worship anything, because worship is giving your power and worth
> away to something else.
>
> Wicca as stands is an artificial _New_ Religion, not the 'Old
> Religion' reincarnated.
>
>
>
> --
> AKA "Evergreen" a Wiccan Priest
You people have to be shitting me!! You're trolling right?
ren
> You people have to be shitting me!! You're trolling right?
Yes. Sidney "Evergreen" Lambe is trying to troll us.
Will you scare him away for us?
Noinden
not require logic. Science does not require faith. Never the twain
shall meet. That is the point. One ‘knows’ one is right spiritually.
One has evidence if one is doing something scientifically. In plant I
have X many Kg of product or I do not. In faith it does not mater.
NeoPagan = “new pagan”. Thus I am not claiming to be a Druid. As a CR
I would never use the word sans neo. IT has a clearly defined meaning.
Similarly I don’t embrace all the old ways, otherwise I would be head
hunting my honored foe. Society changes, and so does religion.
So No it is you who is missing the point. “Apprentice magician”. You
use the Crowelian spelling of Magic. Thus telling me you are an effete
snob with regards to mystical and occult matters. Gardnerian Wicca
(and due to Sanders getting a BOS Alexaindrian Wicca) and Thelema have
some very close ancestors. Crowley can still be felt in most forms of
Wicca. The calling of Quarters, the use of certain tools, the
banishing of gods. Yep that is Great Uncle Al. He tried to get Gardner
to take over the OTO. Gardner held initiations in that too.
You are a poor student of Occult history, by your posts. Gardner and
Nichols were also closely linked. Thus the early OBOD and Gardnerian
Wicca have some commonality. The names of the fire festivals are due
to the late Ross Nichols. Carr-Gomm still embraces many of Gardner’s
ritual practices. But they are Revivalist Druids not Reconstructionist
ones.
As a CR I embrace different ways. No 4 elements, no calling quarters
no raising circles, no banishing the Gods (I dear you to try with The
Morrigan).
Religion is all theater. It fullfills the need. This does not
invalidate it. Indeed the fact there is the need, means it is
important. You miss this. Your very words show you are a slave to your
own Dogma. Just like the rest of us. However you have a closed mind.
As for “doing the work it requires”? You have no idea how long any of
us have been working at what we do. You sneer at academics one moment,
and the next you invoke them.
So your strawpeople (a good Kiwi band) are on fire, and you need to
bring some more. Oh and watch out, that synthetic robe you are wearing
will go up light a tiki torch leaning against a port-a-john!
> Wiccan 'Priest' and Apprentice Magicianhttp://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evergreen
>
> On Feb 3, 3:55 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 2, 6:35 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> ALL religion is play acting.
No it isn't.
> Spirituality is not logical.
Yes it is. If it is based upon real inner perceptions.
> Faith does not require logic.
It does if you aren't an idiot. It also requires credible
premises to base that logic on.
> Science does not require faith.
It sure does. It is based upon assumptions about the nature of
reality that cannot be tested with its own Scientific Method.
It is also based upon assumptions about events that supposedly
occurred in the distant past that cannot possibly ever be
verified in the absence of time machines.
It is simply another religion. The word means, in practical
usage, "The Truth". The dominant religion of every culture calls
itself that. True religious zealots always believe that their
beliefs are facts, not beliefs.
[delete]
I've snipped the rest of this without even bothering to read
it. You are clueless, parroting nonsense taught to you by your
parents and the school system, and the media. You've been
brainwashed most thoroughly.
You let others do your thinking for you.
Noinden
> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ALL religion is play acting.
>
> No it isn't.
Elucidate or retract.
> > Spirituality is not logical.
>
Not logical there is no proof. Logic requires proof QED.
> > Faith does not require logic.
>
> It does if you aren't an idiot. It also requires credible
> premises to base that logic on.
No faith requires faith.
> > Science does not require faith.
>
> It sure does. It is based upon assumptions about the nature of
> reality that cannot be tested with its own Scientific Method.
> It is also based upon assumptions about events that supposedly
> occurred in the distant past that cannot possibly ever be
> verified in the absence of time machines.
Science can not prove it may only disprove. It is the basis of
science. Proof requires faith, and faith is not logical. It is
standard Philosophy of science. It is why things are quoted to
statistical standards. The 95% 99% and 99.9% certainties. One can not
have 100% certainty as one can not sample the entirety of reality.
> It is simply another religion. The word means, in practical
> usage, "The Truth". The dominant religion of every culture calls
> itself that. True religious zealots always believe that their
> beliefs are facts, not beliefs.
Truth is subjective to the person or persons involved. It is how you
can have differing opinions on the matter.
> [delete]
>
> I've snipped the rest of this without even bothering to read
> it. You are clueless, parroting nonsense taught to you by your
> parents and the school system, and the media. You've been
> brainwashed most thoroughly.
I am doing nothing of the sort.
So old bean list what school system I am paroting, or what the members
of my clan taught me. Otherwise you are a close minded twit. Oh wait
you are
> You let others do your thinking for you.
No I think for myself. I talk from my experiences. You are closed to
others realities. Thus you are a thrall.
Evergreen
> On Feb 4, 2:55 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > ALL religion is play acting.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> Elucidate or retract.
A real religion is based upon experiences that people have.
Ever leave your body (OOB/"astral projection")? If you had, you'd
know that the physical scientists were quite wrong about the
nature of reality.
>> > Spirituality is not logical.
>>
>
> Not logical there is no proof. Logic requires proof QED.
No. Logic is simply logic. It's reasoning. It is based upon
assumptions; premises.
If the reasoning is worthwhile it is based upon accurate premises.
>> > Faith does not require logic.
>>
>> It does if you aren't an idiot. It also requires credible
>> premises to base that logic on.
>
> No faith requires faith.
I meant "faith" in the sense of "religion". Paradigms. Worldviews.
>
>> > Science does not require faith.
>>
>> It sure does. It is based upon assumptions about the nature of
>> reality that cannot be tested with its own Scientific Method.
>> It is also based upon assumptions about events that supposedly
>> occurred in the distant past that cannot possibly ever be
>> verified in the absence of time machines.
>
>
> Science can not prove it may only disprove. It is the basis of
> science. Proof requires faith, and faith is not logical. It is
> standard Philosophy of science. It is why things are quoted to
> statistical standards. The 95% 99% and 99.9% certainties. One can not
> have 100% certainty as one can not sample the entirety of reality.
Sophistry from a true religious zealot.
Obviously, physical science is your real religion.
Why aren't you on the physica science groups? Oh. I get it. This
is missionary work for you.
>
>
>> It is simply another religion. The word means, in practical
>> usage, "The Truth". The dominant religion of every culture calls
>> itself that. True religious zealots always believe that their
>> beliefs are facts, not beliefs.
>
> Truth is subjective to the person or persons involved. It is how you
> can have differing opinions on the matter.
Truth is truth.
A statement about the nature of reality is truthful or not.
>
>> [delete]
>>
>> I've snipped the rest of this without even bothering to read
>> it. You are clueless, parroting nonsense taught to you by your
>> parents and the school system, and the media. You've been
>> brainwashed most thoroughly.
>
> I am doing nothing of the sort.
>
> So old bean list what school system I am paroting, or what the members
> of my clan taught me. Otherwise you are a close minded twit. Oh wait
> you are
Resorting to personal attacks.
As all bigots must do when faced with reason.
>
>> You let others do your thinking for you.
>
> No I think for myself. I talk from my experiences. You are closed to
> others realities. Thus you are a thrall.
You claim to speak for yourself, yet I have heard thousands of people
say the same things. All my life.
You deceive yourself.
As all religous zealots must do.
Noinden
> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 2:55 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > ALL religion is play acting.
>
> >> No it isn't.
>
> > Elucidate or retract.
>
> A real religion is based upon experiences that people have.
So list some real religions. I have my religion based off experiences
of the last 36 years, I belong to a group that has over 4000 members
with experiences too. Thus list.
> Ever leave your body (OOB/"astral projection")? If you had, you'd
> know that the physical scientists were quite wrong about the
> nature of reality.
I’ve done that and I’ve done shamanic journey. I also receive Imbas on
a regular basis. Thus get to your point?
Science is evolving. Electrons were particles once, then waves, now we
know they are both. Same goes with Photons.
> >> > Spirituality is not logical.
>
> > Not logical there is no proof. Logic requires proof QED.
>
> No. Logic is simply logic. It's reasoning. It is based upon
> assumptions; premises.
No logic requires proof. Otherwise it is wank!
> >> > Faith does not require logic.
>
> >> It does if you aren't an idiot. It also requires credible
> >> premises to base that logic on.
>
> > No faith requires faith.
>
> I meant "faith" in the sense of "religion". Paradigms. Worldviews.
Again it is faith that it is right. If deity is real, or the Universal
rules. Then one has to have faith one interprets it correctly.
Neopaganism is a mystery religion. It is not based around a book or a
dry dust spokes person for “god”. It is about discovering ones own
mystery. Go read some Ronald Hutton.
>
> > Science can not prove it may only disprove. It is the basis of
> > science. Proof requires faith, and faith is not logical. It is
> > standard Philosophy of science. It is why things are quoted to
> > statistical standards. The 95% 99% and 99.9% certainties. One can not
> > have 100% certainty as one can not sample the entirety of reality.
>
> Sophistry from a true religious zealot.
You do not even get the meaning of Sophistry or Zealot.
> Obviously, physical science is your real religion.
No it is my job. I can draw a line between my work in Pharma and my
spiritual life. I don’t need to mix the two.
> Why aren't you on the physica science groups? Oh. I get it. This
> is missionary work for you.
Umm because I work in the Science industry for a living. I read the
journals daily. Why would I wish to be in the Science groups? Oh and
spud. I am a Process Development Chemist. I straddle the boundary
between Physical science and life sciences. One day I work with
Synthetic organic chemistry to hit up to 6000 galons (and yes I know
that is not IUPAC) the next I might be using an enzyme on the same
scale.
Thus I live my job each day. I live my faith each day two. I enjoy
talking spirituality. Guess what this is what I do online. I am
moderated for a, and closed lists for the most part. But I lurk here
and ARD and have for over a decade.
>
>
> >> It is simply another religion. The word means, in practical
> >> usage, "The Truth". The dominant religion of every culture calls
> >> itself that. True religious zealots always believe that their
> >> beliefs are facts, not beliefs.
>
> > Truth is subjective to the person or persons involved. It is how you
> > can have differing opinions on the matter.
>
> Truth is truth.
No truth is subjective. Universal truths are illusions. They change
all the time.
> A statement about the nature of reality is truthful or not.
Like I said it changes as we get new evidence thus it can not be a
universal truth. We can not grasp it.
>
> >> [delete]
>
> >> I've snipped the rest of this without even bothering to read
> >> it. You are clueless, parroting nonsense taught to you by your
> >> parents and the school system, and the media. You've been
> >> brainwashed most thoroughly.
>
> > I am doing nothing of the sort.
>
> > So old bean list what school system I am paroting, or what the members
> > of my clan taught me. Otherwise you are a close minded twit. Oh wait
> > you are
>
> Resorting to personal attacks.
>
You opened the way to that being ok
> As all bigots must do when faced with reason.
Ooo the bigot card. It’s been 5 or so years since some one tried that.
Hey ren, this ones the new Talesin ;)
>
>
> >> You let others do your thinking for you.
>
> > No I think for myself. I talk from my experiences. You are closed to
> > others realities. Thus you are a thrall.
>
> You claim to speak for yourself, yet I have heard thousands of people
> say the same things. All my life.
I doubt you know thousands of people.
> You deceive yourself.
>
> As all religous zealots must do.
Mirror mirror on the wall
Is Sid the dullest of them all?
Why yes he is Gareth sorry you have to deal with him.
That's ok Mirror
Evergreen
> On Feb 4, 4:29 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 4, 2:55 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Noinden <huathac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > ALL religion is play acting.
>>
>> >> No it isn't.
>>
>> > Elucidate or retract.
>>
>> A real religion is based upon experiences that people have.
>
>
> So list some real religions. I have my religion based off experiences
> of the last 36 years,
I've been to many 'neo-pagan' events and heard everyone say
"Oh my. That was so powerful" (and variations on the theme).
But nothing went on there that couldn't have been accomplished
by a filmmaker or a stage troupe or a storyteller.
And none of it changes anyone.
It's just theater.
> I belong to a group that has over 4000 members
> with experiences too. Thus list.
With real religions you have a person who exhibits extraordinary
abilities and characteristics that are witnessed by others who
are transformed by their association with him/her.
_Those_ people create the religion.
With the 'neo-pagan' religions, you have a bunch of people who
just went to the equivalent of a religions general store and
wandered around and picked whatever they liked off the shelf.
Not the same thing at all.
>
>> Ever leave your body (OOB/"astral projection")? If you had, you'd
>> know that the physical scientists were quite wrong about the
>> nature of reality.
>
>
> I've done that and I've done shamanic journey. I also receive Imbas on
> a regular basis. Thus get to your point?
And you still believe in physical science?
I don't see how that could be possible. Unless you are functionally
schizophrenic.
Crazy or lying? Time will tell.
Ren says he can scramble people's brains and turn them into his
puppets with magick.
He can't. So we know he's a liar.
>
> Science is evolving. Electrons were particles once, then waves, now we
Who cares?
The nature of reality has never changed.
>
>
>> >> > Spirituality is not logical.
>>
>> > Not logical there is no proof. Logic requires proof QED.
>>
>> No. Logic is simply logic. It's reasoning. It is based upon
>> assumptions; premises.
>
>
> No logic requires proof. Otherwise it is wank!
Please look up the word "logic" and think about it and get
back to me.
Your ignorance is astounding in this area.
[delete]
Noinden
> >> > Elucidate or retract.
>
> >> A real religion is based upon experiences that people have.
>
> > So list some real religions. I have my religion based off experiences
> > of the last 36 years,
>
> I've been to many 'neo-pagan' events and heard everyone say
> "Oh my. That was so powerful" (and variations on the theme).
> But nothing went on there that couldn't have been accomplished
> by a filmmaker or a stage troupe or a storyteller.
Name them. People come out of Abrahamic events saying the same thing.
Yet to you they are valid. This is a logic hole.
> And none of it changes anyone.
You can quantify this?
> It's just theater.
Show proof.
> > I belong to a group that has over 4000 members
> > with experiences too. Thus list.
>
> With real religions you have a person who exhibits extraordinary
> abilities and characteristics that are witnessed by others who
> are transformed by their association with him/her.
Ahhh the idea of Cult. Yes the Cult of Jesus is certainly rather
persistent. Howevr the Cult of Buddha is older. So is the cult of
Zoroaster.
You confused revealed religion with mystery. One leads you by the nose
hairs the other tells you to go looking yourself.
> _Those_ people create the religion.
Actually their followers create the relgiion. Jesus created nothing.
Saul/Paul did most of the work. Even the 12 Deciples did not do as
much as a guy who never met Jesus when he was alive.
Gardner and Nichols have both founded religions. In both cases the
real work was those who came after.
It’s called Imbas, it’s called Awen. You lack it!
> With the 'neo-pagan' religions, you have a bunch of people who
> just went to the equivalent of a religions general store and
> wandered around and picked whatever they liked off the shelf.
List how. Go on. You are using a broad brush to try and cover this
shoddy thing you call an argument.
Wicca, Druidry, Druidism (they are different), Heathenism, CR,
Shamanism, etc are very different. Thus you are tilting at a windmill
while setting up straw people to knock over. It is intellectual
cowardice.
The “I’ve been too” or “I know some people who” are akin to “some of
my best friends are insert minority group” approach
> Not the same thing at all.
Prove it.
>
> >> Ever leave your body (OOB/"astral projection")? If you had, you'd
> >> know that the physical scientists were quite wrong about the
> >> nature of reality.
>
> > I've done that and I've done shamanic journey. I also receive Imbas on
> > a regular basis. Thus get to your point?
>
> And you still believe in physical science?
>
> I don't see how that could be possible. Unless you are functionally
> schizophrenic.
Einstien was a practicing jew. Newton was a devout Christian. Philip
Carr-Com holds a PhD in Psycology. One of them is a religious leader.
> Crazy or lying? Time will tell.
No I’m human, you should try it.
> Ren says he can scramble people's brains and turn them into his
> puppets with magick.
Ren also admits he lies 9 times out of ten. He works with images to
achieve his goals.
> He can't. So we know he's a liar.
>
Prove it
>
> > Science is evolving. Electrons were particles once, then waves, now we
>
> Who cares?
It shows a fact you ignore
> The nature of reality has never changed.
Really. Prove it.
What I was pointing out these grand “truths” of which you speak are
unkowable. Thus we can never tell if we see truth or not. TO
Christians it’s the face of god. To me it’s in snippets of Imbas. You
can never see the whole thing. So Truth is subjective.
>
>
> >> >> > Spirituality is not logical.
>
> >> > Not logical there is no proof. Logic requires proof QED.
>
> >> No. Logic is simply logic. It's reasoning. It is based upon
> >> assumptions; premises.
>
> > No logic requires proof. Otherwise it is wank!
>
> Please look up the word "logic" and think about it and get
> back to me.
Look up the entimology of the words Nice and Queer and look how they
are used today. Now go take a paper in logic. Logic requires proof.
Like I said it’s wank otherwise.
> Your ignorance is astounding in this area.
To quote season one of Top Chief. “I am not your bitch, bitch” it
behooves you to make your point. I’m along with the other inmates
here, doing a grand job of setting your straw men on fire and watching
you flail around in the blue flames ;)
You have no proof posted. QED epic fail!
Hope
> > So list some real religions.
Is there a list to follow, sidneystone? Should we hold our collective
breath and wait, or is this yet another question you're just going to
sidestep?
>
> I've been to many 'neo-pagan' events and heard everyone say
> "Oh my. That was so powerful" (and variations on the theme).
> But nothing went on there that couldn't have been accomplished
> by a filmmaker or a stage troupe or a storyteller.
> And none of it changes anyone.
The participants say it does change them. Who are you to tell them
their reality is invalid just because you don't like it? Methinks
thou are the diet of thine own self-worship. A god of clay, indeed.
>
>
> With real religions you have a person who exhibits extraordinary
> abilities and characteristics that are witnessed by others who
> are transformed by their association with him/her.
Where the heck did you get *that* definition of religion? Is this
more of the Gospel According to Sidney the Sacrificial Lambe? My
dictionary gives this definition:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin
religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious
practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2):
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness <They followed
the rules with great religion>
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
faith
When was this voted out? I must have missed the memo.
> _Those_ people create the religion.
Actually, it's usually their followers who actually create the
religion, IMO. And because the needs of humans change over time, so
do things about the religions themselves.
>
> With the 'neo-pagan' religions, you have a bunch of people who
> just went to the equivalent of a religions general store and
> wandered around and picked whatever they liked off the shelf.
Which is what everyone does, when you get right down to it. I doubt
there are even clergy members who agree with every single point of
their religion's teachings. Do you follow your teacher so sheepishly
that you don't dare to disagree with a single belief s/has, little
lambe?
>
> > I've done that and I've done shamanic journey. I also receive Imbas on
> > a regular basis. Thus get to your point?
>
> And you still believe in physical science?
> I don't see how that could be possible. Unless you are functionally
> schizophrenic.
> Crazy or lying? Time will tell.
>
I think you're taking duality to the extreme extreme. Why can't a
person believe in both? Must we also pick one dimension or one
universe as the *only* reality in your narrow view of "The way things
are s'posed to be"?
>
>
> > Science is evolving. Electrons were particles once, then waves, now we
> Who cares?
> The nature of reality has never changed.
How can you, from our limited human perspective, POSSIBLY claim to
know that as fact? Crazy or lying? Time will tell.
> Your ignorance is astounding in this area.
The mirror speaks again. But sidneystone does not see.
Noinden
> On Feb 4, 5:56 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > So list some real religions.
>
> Is there a list to follow, sidneystone? Should we hold our collective
> breath and wait, or is this yet another question you're just going to
> sidestep?
Of course there is not. Then the little bugger will have to actually
say something that can be tied down :)
> > I've been to many 'neo-pagan' events and heard everyone say
> > "Oh my. That was so powerful" (and variations on the theme).
> > But nothing went on there that couldn't have been accomplished
> > by a filmmaker or a stage troupe or a storyteller.
> > And none of it changes anyone.
>
> The participants say it does change them. Who are you to tell them
> their reality is invalid just because you don't like it? Methinks
> thou are the diet of thine own self-worship. A god of clay, indeed.
Ahh but they were fooled by the theater…. Or something. I mean it’s
not like they have white smoke out of chimneys, mood altering
incenses, buildings made to amplify sound and light in particular ways
and alcohol in Christian faith or anything is it?
>
>
> > With real religions you have a person who exhibits extraordinary
> > abilities and characteristics that are witnessed by others who
> > are transformed by their association with him/her.
>
> Where the heck did you get *that* definition of religion? Is this
> more of the Gospel According to Sidney the Sacrificial Lambe? My
> dictionary gives this definition:
>
> Main Entry: re·li·gion
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin
> religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious
> practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
> Date: 13th century
> 1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
> (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2):
> commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
> beliefs, and practices
> 3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness <They followed
> the rules with great religion>
> 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
> faith
Ø When was this voted out? I must have missed the memo.
SHHHH that only counts for logic. Not religon!
Damn it stop confusing him. Stop using your feminine whiles. You are
the root of all evil… or something
> > With the 'neo-pagan' religions, you have a bunch of people who
> > just went to the equivalent of a religions general store and
> > wandered around and picked whatever they liked off the shelf.
>
> Which is what everyone does, when you get right down to it. I doubt
> there are even clergy members who agree with every single point of
> their religion's teachings. Do you follow your teacher so sheepishly
> that you don't dare to disagree with a single belief s/has, little
> lambe?
>
Hey stop talking about sheep I am getting really hungry this late in
the lab!
ren
> On Feb 4, 5:56 pm, Evergreen <sidneyla...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > Ren says he can scramble people's brains and turn them into his
> > puppets with magick.
>
> Ren also admits he lies 9 times out of ten. He works with images to
> achieve his goals.
Correction. 9.7% of the time.
Noinden
Since when did you down grade?
ren
> Since when did you down grade?
Since I stopped playing multi-player video games. I don't need the
latest video card. I've been reading a lot, lately.
sarchasm
That's because his reflection is his only reality, not anyone else's. He
cannot refute your points because he' pretended to pseudo-killfile you and
his position is too weak to defend with rational criticism, (let alone any
self-presummed 'intuition' resulting from naval-starings).
aine
On the alcove??? Naw....Tricked me again.
Noinden
Which MMO's? I was doing CoH/CoV for a while then got active in
community.
ren
> On the alcove??? Naw....Tricked me again.
No! I've been reading about mummies! You always know what I'm reading.
ren
> Which MMO's? I was doing CoH/CoV for a while then got active in
> community.
COD4. I was number 5 on any server for awhile.
Noinden
ahh, I'm currently into iMob it makes the day a littel more fun
aine
I know, right?
(which sounds totally better in audible)
aine
I am confused. Besides sounding like you both take alot of cough
syrup, I did not know Noinden knew how to have fun!
Noinden
There is a lot you do not know :) iMob is a free online game for
iPhone, and you get to be a mobster, climbing the ranks. If you are
suprised about this. Look up KAOS Otago, I belonged to them too.