how do you mean?

there is more than one type of paganism; you have the almost unknown Ásatrú (think Norse), the very well know Wiccans (think Celtic), and all sorts of permutations. its a very individual thing.

with most of them, there is but one rule; Harm None. however, Ásatrú is a bit different; it has 9 rules, or "noble virtues";

   1. Courage
   2. Truth
   3. Honour
   4. Fidelity
   5. Discipline
   6. Hospitality
   7. Self Reliance
   8. Industriousness
   9. Perseverance

Ásatrú is also a polytheism; it has many gods.

also, some of the best mythology evar. I mean, these are proper gods, waxing wrathful with big hammers and lighting

Actaully, my branch doesn't believe in proselytising - it's considered bad form because it interferes with the other party's free will.   But I've yet to actually get the people who knock on my door every month with the latest edition of Watchtower to accept that.  

ah, my Nan loves it when the Jehovahs come round.... you see, she's a Catholic, and she knows the bible better than they do, usually. so, she tears down their arguments and quotes very easily...its funny. they dont even bother with her any more, they just drink tea.

...
also, some of the best mythology evar. I mean, these are proper gods, waxing wrathful with big hammers and lighting

What kind of lighting, Pika?

I hope they use low-energy bulbs!

When I saw your headline, this was the first thing that came to my mind. It's so different from Christians who say, "I explored the vast universe of spirituality and guess what! I believe exactly the nonsense that has been pounded into my head by 99.3% of the people I've known since birth!" A religion should be a bit different from a culturally acquired psychosis.

3.  Nine less commandments.  Harm none.  

Funny how that one never caught on with the Abrahamic folks. Maybe because their god is a narcissistic psychopathic  mass murderer and their religion has ruled by terror for most of their history 

6. I am not afraid of my Gods.  

True that. One of the weirdest and most soul-damaging aspect of many religions is the phenomenon of compulsory monster-love. "My God is a monster and I love him with all my heart and being." I think it's why fundamentalists are drawn to oppressive, authoritarian politics and beat their wives and children.

Actually, you're wrong about Satanists.  They kind you are probably thinking of are commonly referred to as "Rebel Satanists"; these are the teenaged kids that are trying to restore Satan to his throne or some such nonsense.  But many Satanists are not like that.
See, real satanists do not worship satan.  They call themselves satanists because they follow a philosophical path basically laid out by Lucifer's fall.  Most of these satanists call themselves "LaVayan" Satanists.  Basically they believe in individualism and "eye for an eye" morallity.  For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism
I personally disagree with many of their beliefs, but respect them far more than the stupid "Satan will rule the world!!!!" types.

You'll go far.  

On the emo weirdoes... curses don't work.  Amateur ones generally go nowhere and just lie on the caster's floor in a big puddle of negativity.  Or they go out, come straight back and bite the caster.  They require a LOT of energy and focus to work, and even them they have a pretty low strike rate.  Most "curses" work only if the victim freaks out and convinces themselves they're jinxed.  And, as someone already said, they're seriously bad form.  Even if you hae a reason to curse someone - they killed your dog or burnt your house down - better to just wait for Karma to come and sort them out than risk getting yourself involved in some sort of retribution feedback loop.

The weather... similar story.  You'd need a huge amount of energy and precise knowledge of where to direct it to have any effect, and the people who could do it probably wouldn't, because they're aware of the risk of cocking things up big-time by interferring with natural systems.  Generally you work with natural systems, not trying to change them.

But having said that... there will be pagan twerps that give the rest a bad name.  Just like there are Aspie twerps.

Actually, I know someone who can affect the weather.  He doesn't do any spells or anything; he says he speaks directly the the Earth herself.  They have a bit of a stormy relationship though.  
He's a weird one in many ways, though.  He can make a cellphone turn itself off just by holding it to his chest; electronics short out or go on the fritz around him all the time.  His presence drains batteries.  No one's been able to figure it out.

Like, really Satanists?  Do you live near a Satanic cult?  Or is that meant in more of a broad way?

The yule log is a tradition which is thought to be associated with Thor.  The tradition of Yule was, I believe, in midwinter, and it was rather cold, so you burned this log for several days during your celebration, Yule.  The origin of the Christmas Tree, an evergreen, comes in there as well.  The evergreen tree is significant as a symbol that the world will again be green and fruitful, and that even though there may be snow on the ground and the earth seems frozen, there is still life out there.  With the short days and cold, before "modern times", especially in the more frigid regions, I would expect that the winter seems never ending, and the Yule celebration gave the folks something to look forward to.  

Just my thoughts of course...

(I am, apparently, comma happy, today.)

No.  Harming none means not harming anyone.  Eye for an Eye means ripping someone's face off if they rip yours off.

Or, as is more likely to happen in real life... If they insult you, you insult them, if they punch you, you punch them, if they steal from you, you steal from them, etc.

I’m a Christian and confirmed as such a few years ago; but I have a very eclectic view of spirituality and so have incorporated many aspects of paganism and older religious beliefs into my view of the world. Shamanism, Wicca and animism, the ’world tree’ the four/five element etc all feature; as do Taoist, Buddhist and Hindu concepts.
I think perhaps my ‘pick and mix’ view of spirituality might make me a ‘bad Christian’; but for some reason there is rarely any conflict in my mind between these various belief systems.

Many pagan ideas were integrated into the early Christian church’; ideas of hospitality and simplicity, creativity, art song and some rituals.

Happy to meet another 'bad christian' here:.
The Christian language is my mother tongue religiously, so it is my main language. Having a Goddess experience is not a contradiction. Feeling at home in buddhist language neither.
They do influence eachother. But do not become one. Each gives me a different view. And I love that.

I can only answer for me, but I strongly believe in karma.  My belief is that you get what you put out x3.  Good or bad.

Duckie... thanks for your post.  It's lovely.  And I've missed you.  

Thanks Ethel...missed you very much too.

Not revenge so much as sorting-out and balance, but that's the idea.  Just like Christians are supposed to forgive and turn the other cheek.

You CAN ask Karma to hurry up and come around and bite them if you desperately need closure, but only in relation to something that specifically affects you.  And even then, it's just asking, if Karma's got its own plans for that person it probably won't change its course just because you want to see them with egg on their face.

Actually that is very true.  The thought of "Do Unto Others" also makes the assumption that you know how other people would like to be treated.  

"Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same."  George Bernard Shaw

Besides, when many Christians spout that, it is because of their fear of God and the punishment that awaits them if they have been "bad".  It has nothing whatsoever to do with self-responsibility.  

Posted to soon.  sorry.

In most christian doctrines revenge belongs not to humans. It is up to god. Also the judgement about revenge is not for humans. It is just as much out of reach as karma.

But anger is there. And that means you can stand up against injustice. Love your neighbour as you love yourself is asking that.

So standing up against the KKK is allowed.

Defending yourself is different than to take revenge on someone by doing unto them what they did to you.

The revenge is the logic step. It is the "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" the other way round. But that is not meant to be. Revenge is not for us humans.

(Of course I am guilty of revenge once in a while, even today. Also in writing, it is a human trait, but it can couse negative spiraling so easily)

I do not look for an afterlife or reward, but I do watch myself in realizing that all of my actions, bad or good, have an impact on other people.  I like to make sure that the impact I have is what I want it to be, whether it be positive or negative.

Yes, I agree with that. I also am aware that my actions can have effects that I never imagined. These can be positive and negative too. And allthough I did not plan or want that impact I am responsible.

Totally.  I have a story on that one somewhere.  I am going to have to look it up when I get home tonight.  

I lost a job over it.  Now, I am not out as a pagan at work unless I really am friends with the person.   My husband's family also attempted to turn our religion against us by saying that we were not fit to raise a child as we were "satanic witches."  Which we are not.  I am not sure that those actually exist, but either way, that does not describe us.

Define paganism. Most neo-pagans are just new age treehuggers who don't have a clue what paganism is really all about.

To quote an authority figure :

Genuine paganism is the spiritual tradition of the Indo-European peoples that precedes Christianity. It is a reference to orriginal Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Germanic, Vedic, Shinto and/or other related religions.

Wicca is a bunch of new age mumbo-jumbo loosely inspired by genuine paganism and littered by liberal propaganda nonsense.

There are a couple of reasons for this.
1.  Our country has a long tradition of discrimination against Native Americans.  Much of what we teach in our history classes is a heavily whitewashed (i.e, all traces of anything bad americans did is removed), modernized version of all the stereotypes and misconceptions white folks had right from the start, more or less.
2.  A huge amount of Native culture and belief has simply vanished without a trace thanks to White folks' brainwashing of Native children in "Indian boarding schools", where they were not allowed to speak their language, practice their religion, or in any way act anything but White.
3. What DOES remain of the original Native cultures and belief systems is usually kept very secret by the tribes themselves.  All this crap that we read about in new age books, see at PowWows, etc, is dumbed down and heavily modified to suit the stereotypes of the White man.  Powwows are especially nasty- their only purpose is for dancers to compete the White man's way, by the White man's rules, for the White man's money.
We are lucky enough in my town to have a "real" powwow, which is hosted by the Native Americans themselves and serves as a place for them to meet each other and feel safe, and share something real with white people who care, instead of more fakery.  A little bit like a Native American version of Autreat.

One more thing that makes the view we see of Native Americans so different from reality:  In schools and many books they insist on acting as though all Native Americans have the same culture.  This is patently absurd.  There were hundreds of tribes with their own practices and languages, and while some of them are similar enough that they can be grouped as "culture groups", there are still huge variations between these culture groups.  So, in the case of your Cree friends, I'm betting what their children were taught was a heavily whitewashed and homogenized "all Native Americans are like THIS" type of curriculum.

(As you can see, I feel pretty strongly about this!  My mother is an anthropologist/archaeologist, she raised me teaching me about the mistreatment of many groups, including the Native Americans)

thats...an oxymoron..?

Primitive religions like shamanism are usually put in a different category from Indo-European paganism, because it is far less advanced. Although I'm not an expert, I would say that Native-American spiritual teachings are somewhat an intermedia between advanced Indo-European (or East-Asian) spirituality and primitive African spirituality.

Luai_lashire is probably correct here.

From my point of view, any religion that is not nature-centric is not a true religion

Still, I think Wicca is bunk, because it's too modernist and postmodernist in interpretation.

Correction:  "Pagan" roots from "paganus" as you yourself noted in your previous post.  A post which is, by the way, based more on conjecture and opinion than fact and is very offensive.  Anyway, "pagan" just means "country bumpkin", more or less.
HOWEVER!  And this is something many people seem not to understand- "Paganism", now DOES NOT MEAN THIS.  The meanings of words change over time.  No matter how misguided the original choice of the word "pagan" may have been to describe these religions, we are stuck with it now.
At its broadest, "Pagan" is sometimes used to mean "any non-Abrahamic faith".  However, this usage is falling out of favor and is often not recognized any more.  Currently, "Pagan" is mostly used to refer to a wide range of Nature-based "reconstructed" faiths and some entirely new, "invented" faiths.  Wicca is ONE such invented faith, which falls into the wide category of "Paganism".
In general, pagan faiths can be defined as faiths which seek to "reconstruct" some aspects of historical faiths.  Even Wicca does this to some extent, although much of Wicca was just made up.  Some paths take this extremely seriously and are trying to completely reclaim old faiths; Celtic Reconstructionism is one of these.
Most pagan faiths fall somewhere in-between, with a healthy dose of historical fact, some historical fiction that is accepted as fact, and some totally new stuff.

There are a lot of people who believe paganism "can't" be a "real faith" because some of the beliefs and traditions of these people are recently invented.  Take, for example, calling the four quarters of the circle.  This was invented for Wicca.  It has no basis in history whatsoever.  Many critics claim this makes it "invalid".  I don't personally call quarters, but I still object to this criticism.
We make our own traditions.  Paganism is a NEW religion, no matter how old its roots may be, and that is completely fine.  The Bible tells you to stone your neighbors and sell your daughter into slavery, yet it's totally fine for Christians to toss these teachings aside and adopt new ones.  Pagans do the same thing- we pick up new traditions all the time.
To me, that's what paganism IS- it's a religion of change.  The very Wheel of the Year, the most important festivals to most pagans, are a celebration of the passage of time and the change of the seasons.  So why should a religion of change try to stay exactly the same?
Furthermore, Paganism is all about meaningful experiences.  Something doesn't have to be an ancient tradition to be meaningful.  My family never celebrated Solstice until a few years ago, but we have a tradition for it now- our very own tradition that we invented and we have done it every year.  We light hundreds of candles and half-bury them in the snow in our yard, diffusing the light so they make beautiful golden circles in the snow.  And it's incredibly meaningful.  It's the most beautiful holiday tradition my family has ever had.  It was our own idea, not based on anything, but it's every bit as valid as stringing popcorn around a pine tree.
On February second, I was handfasted to my bf/husband in a pagan wedding ceremony.  Handfasting is believed, by many pagans, to be an ancient traditional practice of certain European peoples.  It isn't.  It was invented quite a while ago- in the 1800s, if I recall correctly- by a writer who claimed to have met people who practiced this tradition.  They never existed.  Nevertheless, handfasting now has become a Pagan tradition.  It in no way resembles the ceremony described by this man.  It is something new, something uniquely pagan.  I knew all this before I took part in the ceremony and it didn't bother me in the least.  It's a beautiful ceremony and I loved it.  What more do I need?  The validation of knowing some old dead men did it, too?
So it doesn't matter to me whether the beliefs I hold have any basis in historical fact.  What matters is my experience and why I believe what I believe. And most pagans feel the same way.

(FYI: I happen to enjoy my dad's family's religion - that of Byzantine Catholic - I love my eastern european traditions, the food, the incense etc., but that is besides the point)

The way I know my religion is that Love is the greatest of all commandments and love of all people and our planet is a moral issue.

(sorry to be boring)

Here you show your lack of knowledge.  Indo-European religion was FULL of shamanism.  Shamanism doesn't mean "African religion".  It is a practice that abounds in most ancient cultures.
Almost all of the pagans I know are profoundly interested in Shamanism, including european, native american, and african shamanism.  Myself, I am extremely interested in Australian Aboriginal religion.
And Native American beliefs are not an "intermediary" between ANYTHING.  They are their own religion.
Honestly, all these belief groups are so disparate that you can't really group them in any meaningful way.  You can make connections, but that's about it.

Religions tend to form themselves to fit the time they are in. The epistels in new testament are 'tainted' by greek culture e.g.

Lutheranism was 'colored' by the philosophy of Luther's days.

And religions tend to evolve, to fit the new era they are in.

So modernist and postmodernist tendencies in wicca is not a valid reason to qualify Wicca as bunk.

This is where you and I differ. I regard only orriginal nature-based religions (eg. Vedanta Hinduism or Shintoism) or recreations thereof (ef. Asatru) as valid pagan religions. Invented religions such as "Wicca" are artificial and imo don't apply to the label of "pagan". At most, I would refer to them as neo-pagan.

I would speak of pagan filosofies or spiritual teachings rather than faiths.

The core principles of pagan religion are timeless, unchangable and unrelated to any specific era or people. It are merely the details and interpretations that differ from era to era and from culture to culture.

Tradition is not a set of folkloristic rituals. Tradition is a mindset and paganism is the expression of that mindset.

I believe in the Vedic principle that there are a myriad of ways towards enlightenment but only one end goal

From my perspective, true religion is free of dogma and contains only logics and mythos.

Pagan religions do contain shamanic elements, but they go way beyond the primitive shamanism of African tribes in terms of enlightenment and depth.

I see shamanism in comparison with Indo-European paganism as I see a chimp in comparison with a human. They come from the same source, but Indo-European paganism is philosophically far more advanced.

From my perspective, a valid religion is timeless and unrelated to any specific era, at least when looking at the core principles.

Ok I'm coming up with a very old question,

Can you get the core of an onion without the onion?

Form and content are interrelated. You cannot peel them from eachother without damage.

Yup.  But what can you do?  People will be, well, people.

It isn't a matter of "differing".  It is semantics.  The dictionary backs me up.  What you are doing is basically saying, "OK, I agree that THIS is a pencil, but this other one isn't because I believe only yellow things can be pencils."
You are welcome to your philosophical opinion, but you are going to have no luck redefining the meaning of a word.

I believe you mean "Philosophies" not "filosofies".  Why are they not faiths?  
Faith  –noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Religion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.


I would say they neatly fit both definitions, wouldn't you?

I think that is something we can agree on.  But then, I beleive the core values of every religion are the same; some interpretations of those values may differ- for example one's stance on abortion can be pro-life or pro-choice and you can justify either one with the exact same core values (we won't get into the details of that here, it's too messy and political), but even though the interpretation of how those values affect our lives is different, the values are the same.
Not to mention, just because someone who follows a religion does something and justifies it by their religion, doesn't mean the religion supports it- many murderers are/were Christian, despite that faith's condemnation of killing.  One must take into account that different practitioners will have a different (sometimes quite poor) understanding of their path.

Tradition
–noun
1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
2. something that is handed down: the traditions of the Eskimos.
3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.
4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
5. a customary or characteristic method or manner: The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition.

Gee, looks like the dictionary contradicts you on that one, too.
Of course, tradition is/can be a mindset, but that is not all that it is, and dismissing everything else as "not really tradition" is inaccurate.

I believe in the Vedic principle that there are a myriad of ways towards enlightenment but only one end goal

I agree with you again there.  

Why do you think this?  What is it about African religion (which, by the way, is an EXTREMELY disparate grouping of many different kinds of paths) that you think is "unenlightened" or "shallow"?  How much do you actually know about these religions?  Do you know anything beyond the trappings- the clothing, rituals, dances, etc?  Do you know the meaning?  Do you know the philosophy of these tribes?  What gives you the right to say it is "unenlightened"- especially if, as you claimed above, you believe there are many paths to one goal?

Again, you fail to understand.  Shamanism is not SEPARATE or DISTINCT from Indo-european paganism.  It is an inherent aspect of it.  It is not like chimps vs. humans, it is like your leg.  It is part of the "human body" of indo-european paganism.

A filosofy is clearly a philosophy without any Greek influence. ^_^

I figured it could be something like that, which is why I didn't chew Illusion out, I just corrected his mistake.

*blush*  Thank you!  You are pretty knowledgeable yourself.

What is it exactly that you would like to know?  I'm not exactly an expert- but if I can I'll try to answer any questions you have.

I think I have become set in my ways. I seriously studied a path for several years, then switched paths and studied another for a couple of years.  It was a huge investment of time and effort, and I learned so much.  One of my teachers was very intent on teaching us a very broad spectrum of information, and that you needed to know everything and then some about a subject.  The other teacher was more about the feeling and love of the religion.

I have lost the need for much of what I studied once I decided that being a kitchen witch was much more comfortable for me. The knowledge, the history, the more specific things, though I think they are somewhere in my brain, it is not easy to access.  So I really appreciate you taking the time to offer your knowledge and enlightment to the forum.  

Have some greasy heavy food.  Helps with the hangover.  

Illusion seems to be a piece of work...from what I have seen so far.

We have a created deity or two, ourselves.  Send me a PM and I will share them.  

"I summon the five points of the compass... To the south, the red ranger, with the power sword as symbol, I invoke red ranger pterodactyl power. Transform!"



*grins* Sometimes I just can't help myself...

If the real, bog standard, bona-fide jesus H christ son of god hgimself came back to earth today, thje first thing that would happenm is some shrink would have him committed.

Sorry about the spelling kistakes btw, I have seen most of them, but my connection is so damn slow by the time I manage to positionthe cursor somewhere, its ten minutes after where I bloody started

Sorry about the connection Lestat.  Actually that reminds me of this morning.  We are sitting in the car, and some obviously out of it guy, talking to himself rather rapidly, who looks homeless, has all of these scratches on his forehead.  

My husband says "There is what drugs will get you."  

I say "Did you see the scratches all over his forehead?"  

He says "Yeah, that could be from a crown of thorns.  God says, look, I sent you my son to PROVE my existence, and look what you say - That is what drugs will get you.  Now burn in Hell!"  LOL!

I also see true religion as a spiritual teaching based on nature. I see true religion as a spiritual teaching based on tribal life of which the most primitive and most natural variant can be found among primitive tribes and group animals (like wolves or apes). Wicca is an artificial construct that deviates from this.

Of course, whether a spiritual teaching is true or not, is too subjective as long as science doesn't rule out all but one teaching.

Dogma is typical for Judeo-Christian religions, but not for other religions. Teachings like Hinduism, Budhism, Shintoism or Asatru know very enlightened and anti-dogmatic interpretations that nevertheless remained constant for centuries or (in case of Vedanta Hinduism) millennia.

You have to peel through the outer layers, but why does that matter if you only care about the core? I have to destroy the wrappings when I open a present, but I don't care about this because I only care for what's inside.

I've always found actual content to prevail over semantics. Definitions differ from individual to individual, from era to era and from civilisation to civilisation.

The word "faith" implies that you believe something without any rational backing. It implies that you're not entirely convinced but that you rather accept something as true without being able to give anything but emotional argument. I am a pagan because my instinct and rational arguments both tell me that the only path towards a better future is the path of nature. That has nothing in common with faith.

Just for the record, I fit many of the criteria for the Dr. Spock Aspie stereotype. That might explain how I look at spirituality

The core values of all nature-based (pagan) religions are the same. The less nature-based, the more they deviate. Especially Abrahamic faiths strongly differ from nature-based religions in key areas.

Like I said : definitions differ from individual to individual, from era to era and from civilisation to civilisation. I use the definition of "tradition" as used by the traditionalist school.

I'm not dismissing folklore or other aspects related to tradition. I'm just saying that this is no more than the outer shell of a much deeper philosophical concept.

They simply lack the philosophical depth that can be found in eg. Eddic or Vedic lore. This does not mean that these spiritual teachings are worthless. In fact, for the poorly developed European it might actually be a more suitable framework than the much more complex Indo-European of East-Asian traditions. It is not without reason that the Brahmans used to keep the core knowledge for themselves and only handed out watered down knowledge to the masses.

Enough to say that in none of these primitive religions they come even close to the sort of enlightenment that can be experienced by a Buddhist, a Toaist, an Asatru, a Shinto or a Brahman scholar. Must more than on rationality, these religions are based on instinct (=intuition).

Again, this is semantics. I see shamanism as a religion focussed on the shamanic aspects, whereas I see paganism as a philosophical framework that incorporates shamanic practices as one of its many facets.

Please note that I'm not a native English speaker and that "filosofie" is indeed the spelling of the word in my native language, as hyke already pointed out. Every now and then, I mix up the spelling of a word with the spelling of the same word in another language. That happens when you are fluent in two languages and you have an average comprehension of two others

What hate? Where did I express any sort of hatred towards anyone of anything?

Why is it that so many people always couple different viewpoints with hate? Is it because you yourself can only feel hate for those with different viewpoints? I just don't get it......

I didn't pour a bucket of bile over them. I just said that I regard their views as bunk and explained why I feel so. If I would have gotten a nickle everytime someone said something bad about a viewpoint I hold dear, I would most definitely have appeared in the list of 100 richest men on this plant. Some people just have a different opinion on some viewpoints than you do. Deal with it!

You started a thread about paganism and I'm just saying that's not really paganism. It is as much my right to voice my opinion as it is your right to voice yours.

I've been a wiccan in the past, but the way. I was it for only a short time, though, because it was much too artificial for me. Now I'm a pagan everythinng feels far more natural and makes more sense rationally speaking..... so yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

Actually, most pagan religions only use the concept of multiple Gods as a symbolic exoteric explanation of much deeper concepts for the masses. The inner esoteric knowledge is tripped from such nonsense and goes way beyond in terms of depth. The closest thing to a personal God within esoteric pagan tradition is something like the concept of Brahman (= the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe). It is much closer to Kantian philosophy than to any personal divinity.

You should really learn to treat criticism as criticism and not as message of intollerance or hate. That seems like a quite prejudiced and narrowminded approach by yourself. Not an insult, just an advice.

I'm just the Dr Spock type of Aspie who spent quite a long time educating himself and who cares more about being honest and forward than about how people might feel about that. If someone believes something to be true, he should be able to freely voice his opinion and others should respect that. I find it quite pathetic to see people getting outraged when others just give their honest and educated opinion without swallowing half of it or first wrapping it in various layers of empty words. That's just not my style and that never will be. If we can't even voice our honest and educated opinions openly anymore because someone just might get hurt, we should seriously ask ourselfs how and why we let this society turn into a society of whining wussies.

A walkabout is the Aboriginal rite of passage where individuals are sent on their own into the bush. Almost all nature-oriented cultures (if not all) have their own rites of passage.

For an aboriginal, dreams are an expression of their inner soul. It tells them about their totem, about the past and about their place in life. They derive their spiritual views mostly on dreams.

I don't see how all this is relevant. How does a primitive ritual like the walkabout and the use of dreams as a spiritual guideline compare with the complexicity of Indo-European or East-Asian spirituality?

It's always best to do your own research, yes.

You know, it's fine for you to have your own interests and believe that Indo-european and East-asian spiritualities are more interesting, but not everyone shares that belief.
M was not involving herself in our previous discussion, she was asking a question that was related to something I mentioned earlier.

Oh my, I was sharing my opinion, did you miss that?  Or were you too busy whining and being a wussy?

From Wikipedia, backed up by secondary sources.

SO MUCH THAT.

I wouldn't even say they are more interesting. They're just interesting on a different level, just like a wolf pack is interesting on a different level from both primitive human society and complex human society.

I realise that by now. My bad.

The massive generalisation that the many Aboriginal Australian religions are "primitive" compared to your precious Indo-Europeans is racist and ignorant.  Have you actually spoken to an Indigenous Australian?  Or have you read some books by white authors with a few skewed 19th century interpretations of their beliefs?  But because they didn't speak English (or Dutch) and still lived a hunter-gatherer existence 250 years ago they're therefore undeveloped primitives with a lesser religion? There's being "honest and forward" and there's being an arsehole, and I reckon that line's been crossed.

Indigenous Australian religions are a complex and sophisticated mixture of ancestor worship, shamanism, deep environmental awareness and rules for living which are a combination of spiritual and ethical guidelines and practical knowledge needed to survive in the often harsh Australian wilderness.

Illusion, if having someone stand up to you when you're out of line is a new experience, you're going to have to get used to it, because as I said on the "how tolerant are you" thread, I am NOT prepared to be a doormat.

Is offensive to followers of Indigenous Australian religions?  (Yes, there ARE still followers of Indigenous Australian religions!  The superior white man with their superior religion didn't manage to completely wipe out the "primitive" ways after all.  Heard of the Stolen Generation, Mr Indo-European-is-superior?)

And can you aslo not see how

You do not know me, Mr Indo-European supremacist.  But I find your consideration of me as "narrowminded" because I have the gall to stand up to your hateful nonsense, quite laughable.

Is offensive to followers of Indigenous Australian religions?  (Yes, there ARE still followers of Indigenous Australian religions!  The superior white man with their superior religion didn't manage to completely wipe out the "primitive" ways after all.  Heard of the Stolen Generation, Mr Indo-European-is-superior?)

And can you also not see how

Is OFFENSIVE to wiccans?  Now, maybe things are different on whatever plane of existence you dwell on, but here in the real world denigrating another person's religion is offensive, very very rude, and is usually considered a hateful act.

Don't give me any of your flowery fluff about your "right to voice an opinion".  Your right to voice your opinion stops where you stop and other peoples' beliefs start.  So you calling another person's belief structure "new age mumbo jumbo" because YOU don't agree with it is a HATEFUL ACT.  Who voted you the final authority on which religion is right and which is wrong?

Now, how about this:

You do not know me, Mr Indo-European supremacist.  But I find your consideration of me as "narrowminded" because I have the gall to stand up to your hateful nonsense, quite laughable.
[/quote]

There's a difference between genuine criticism in the interest of generating inquiry and new thought; and denigrating, putting down, and dismissing someone's beliefs.
For example, I have participated in many religious (pagan) debates on a wide range of topics; whether it is better to try to recreate historical pagan faiths as accurately as possible, or better to make something new that suits modern day people and culture, for example; also, whether or not science can be integrated with religious pagan beliefs.
These discussions were all respectful and well-reasoned.
Illusion's arguments are all dismissive, subtly supremacist, etc. and do not constitute a valid religious debate.  It is akin to a scientific paper that proposes that African-Americans are inherently less intelligent, based on IQ scores.  No credible journal will publish it, because it is a study clouded and biased on the basis of hate.  The authors believe their study is accurate, because they have rationalized their biases to themselves to the point where they are oblivious to them.  Illusion is doing the same thing with his hate- it is so wrapped in scholarly trappings it is invisible to him, although obvious to others.

It shouldn't.  But neither should the person choosing to criticize it.  

On the other end of my statement, I wanted to post this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anFqvwQoaR8

Yeah, so I am a little touchy.

I'm a conservative revolutionary. I belong to the traditionalist school and am a convinced ethnonationalist. I've been involved in dozens of discussions and people have been calling me racist, antisemite, xenophobe, homophobe, narrowinded, hypocritical, idiotic, supremacist and various other names for no other reason but applying to these ideologies and expressing views that are nonconventional. Hell, folks like Maxbear and ocampo are doing the same thing over here. [u]THAT, my dear, is offensive. THAT, my dear, is bigoted and prejudiced.[/u] Who voted these people the final authority on which religion or ideology is right and which is wrong? Who votes them the final authority on what is proper morallity?

I've also known other call the ideas that are dear to me racist, stupid, xenophobic, outdated, ... That too I've seen on this site. Why should I therefore be more subtle and more careful when expressing my views? Why should I make sure I don't offend anyone when expressing my honest opinion if others just keep on offending me and what I stand for? Why can controversial beliefs continuously be demonised while a criticism of certain lifestyles or ideas based on rational arguments is not accepted because some people are offended by it?

It seems like you people are not used to any real criticism, which I find quite strange for an Aspie. If anyone should be used to be it feels to be offended for something that's dear to me, it's an Aspie.

Nevertheless, let me make one thing clear : nowhere on this site did I intend to offend or defame a single individual or a single group of individuals. I don't feel like sparing those who are too sensitive for criticism either, though. I just give me honest opinion and if that is offensive to you, you might want to grow a spine.








Oh.... and for the zillionth time : I'm not a supremacist, I'm not a racist, I'm not a xenophobe and I'm not a bigot.

I do regard homosexuality as deviant, but I also regard Asperger's as deviant (which makes myself deviant). People should be proud of being deviant rather than demanding for others to regard them as "normal". Normal people are boring.  I don't see why anyone would demand to be called "normal" instead of deviant when they truely deviate from the norm.

I do distinguish between ethnic groups, but I treat people of every ethnic group with the same respect as my own family and friends. I may not believe in the concept of multi-culturalism, but that doesn't stop me from treating people of another ethnic group and culture with respect and kindness.

I do think certain religions and ideologies are bunk, but so does everyone else on this forum. Just because I may say that your specific religion or ideology is bunk, that doesn't mean I don't respect you as a person. I used to be a catholic and a wiccan myself for some time.

I do think certain cultures, religions or ideologies are more primitive than others. That's just an observation based on comparing them on various level. Just because I regard something as primitive, that doesn't mean I don't respect it or can't be interested in it. My dogs are also more primitive than I, but I still love and get fascinated by them.

What bothers me about liberals, is that they somehow can't seem to figure that you don't have to see something as "normal" or "equal" to appreciate or respect it as much as anything else. Something can be primitive or inferior and still fascinating. Something can be deviant and still fascinating. You should stop thinking so black & white !

Nice use of HTML there.

Put it this way, I wouldn't go onto a BNP website and argue with their beliefs. I would not fit in with the dynamic of the group, so I respect their territory to *** and whine about how they've got the answers to life, the universe and everything.

By the same extent, your belief system does not fit in with the dynamic of this group. Thats not anyone saying our ideology is superior. Its saying our ideology matches the core value dynamic of said fora, and yours does not.

Now do everyone a favour, pick your dummy up and GTFO. There are plenty of places where you will fit in; quit bitching when you clearly do not belong here and are only digging yourself a deeper hole. You've already been warned officially about your bullshit. This post is getting reported too. Oh, and Ethel told you to get your *** out of her thread. You've been told it was not a debate thread by several members - it was a thread for Ethel to express her own beliefs, not to be debated with by some jumped up little bellend who has a gross misconception of his own worth.

Must suck to be of a lower social status eh Feminine role in homosexual sex?? AHAHAHAHAHA get off Limewire - when you've met one gay man, you've met one gay man. I worked with a guy like you who came out with that kind of *** - the end result is I walked away with a cheque and the company lost their contract.

Let me get one thing straight for you - these days, its scum like you that is the ***/negro/***. The likes of you *** about how misunderstood you are because the likes of you have been holding everyone else back for centuries. Thats why you look to traditionalism - in a desperate attempt to make sense of a world that has finally turned on scum like you and all you stand for. Of course you'd support traditionalism! You're a heterosexual male who is most likely Caucasian. You've had the upper hand for centuries! Sucks to have it taken away from you finally, doesn't it. Tell me, do you have monorchism?

I cannot wait to see the blue line through your name. No-one here is interested in your opinions. Get that through your thick skull. And GTFO, troll.

So you'd feel fine if we just said:

"IlluSionS667 we think your ideas are primitive, badly put, condescending and painfull, but we think it is fascinating none the less."??????

Just trying to understand.

Sorry,

That should have been

So you'd think it would be fine if we just stated:

First of all, I haven't said anywhere that other folks' ideas are badly put, condescending and painful. My criticism was far milder than that.

Second, I've seen people write or heard people say something like "we think your ideas are primitive, badly put, condescending and painfull" and much worse perhaps a million time.... and almost noone sees any problem with that, because my ideas are non-conventional and controversial. People like ocampo or Maxbear are a perfect illustration of that.

Third, unlike people like ocampo or Maxbear I don't make my judgements based on prejudice but on rational thought. I don't just make assumptions on how people think and why, but I just look at the plain, cold, dead facts. That's what makes me fit into the Dr Spock stereotype. All these emotions over rational opinions is something that just puzzles me.

Oh, so saying people who call you out for what you are don't have spines is a mild criticism?

Keep digging, and a few of us will keep reporting.

I think your logic isn't that flawless. You have do not use your words that careful and you don't mind being not careful with your words. When you are not careful with the words you use you will not be able to present your 'logic' in a convincing way. Not for us and not for yourself. Using 'normal' f.i. both as statistic terminology and as a qualifying terminology is making your logic opaque.

You also do not see a difference between predjudice and experience/feeling. The fact that you seem not to have feelings does not make you superior to those who have. And those who have feelings can't be told that they should not react on their feelings in a discussion with you. Those feelings are real, and in most cases the feelings expressed here are backed up by experience. So even if you do not understand them you must take feelings serious as a fact, even if it is as a fact you do not understand.

Facts about race, sexual preference, gender etc there are no dead cold facts. All the facts you can find are attached to strong feelings. Trying to debate them in a cold detached professional way is an illusion. Even demographic facts are not cold dead facts. The sentiments of the researcher shine through.

Dr. Spock, other Vulcans and Data did respect feelings. Even if they did not understand them, or just because they did not understand them.

Thanks. I'll be going on vacation soon, though, so I won't be back for long

Suppose that African Americans were actually less intelligent (note: this is a hypothetical, not something I believe). Then no one would publish the truth, just because people would take offense. There's a thin line here to walk, because on the one hand, you don't want to allow bigoted and racist statements and rationalizations of the same, but on the other, you don't want to exclude truth, either.

I believe that some societies are better than others. For instance, I believe that with modern health care, modern technology, women's rights, individual rights, democracy etc. make western society better than Islamist cultures, and also less advanced, "primitive" cultures, of the kind that would likely retain pagan beliefs. Does this make me a supremist? I hope not, since it's a very loaded term. I certainly don't believe that the people in these societies are worth less than us, or in some special way apart from us, subhumans, or the like.

Of course not, but isn't it better to criticize opinions and not people?

Sure.  But as is the way with "people", often times their thoughts are fraught with emotion.  Especially when it comes to religion!  Oh my!  So when a religion is insulted, the people take great offense, and respond in kind.  

In the end, tis much easier on everyone to back off and let everyone have their own religious thoughts and feelings, sans criticism.

There's a truth in saying that the same content can sound like the bells of heaven or like the bell of doom, just depending on how you put yours words. I guess I just lack the talent to be both frank and non-offensive at the same time. My girlfriend has learnt how to deal with that and not interpret something in a negative way when there is a positive way to interpret it in. I realise that others never had to learn that and sure as hell are not going to apply this with a stranger on the other side of the globe. Still, I am not the kind of person to wrap my words in foil and lint in order to make sure no one feels offended by whatever opinion I hold of them or what is dear to them. Others don't have the courtesy to do the same for me or what is dear to me so why should I do this extra effort for them? We should people be encouraged to be so ultra-sensitive and why should no one be allowed to criticise them of what is dear to them? Why should I grant anyone that courtesy when they force me to be hard as a stone?

I do have feelings like everyone else. I can be hurt, I can be joyful, I can be sad and I can feel love. I simply don't pass judgements on people and can see a person's flaws without thinking less of them. If people treat me with respect, then I grant them that courtesy too... no matter what feelings or ideas I may have about their lifestyle, their ideas, their upbringing or their background. I may disagree with everything they stand for, but if they have an open mind for the individual that I am, I will grant them no less than that same courtesy. Mutual respect is a sacred value to me and one I apply in my daily life.

I find it hard to grasp it when people pass judgements based on their own fears, their worries, their greed and their prejudice. After just seeing Lars Von Trier's masterpiece Dogville, a minimalist psychological drama that tears open the sesspool that is human nature, I realise better than ever how bigoted the most self-righteous liberals tend to be, how weak and how pathetic human nature tends to be. People are nothing but prisoners of their primal instincts, their weaknesses and their fears. They can do whatever they can to justify or cover up their bigotry, their vanity and their ignorance. They will build up walls around them that display at least some form of civilisation, but in the end they rarely support the character to rise above this primitive existence and be a better, more tolerant and openminder individual. I feel like an alien when I look at humanity displaying this beast-like sort of existence and I feel absolutely flabbergasted by what I see. It makes me feel ashamed to be of that same species and ponder about what bliss it would be to live as a member of a wolfpack somewhere in a desolate area, free and unharmed by the destructive influence of human civilisation.......

The emotions of joy and love can be so wonderful and it is like a sunshine in my heart to know I found a person with whom I can hopefully share the rest of my life. I love to smell the flesh smell of springtime while walking in the forrest and I love to see the stars twinkle in the unpolluted bright sky when strolling down the road in a small rural village. Mankind is corrupted, however, by emotions of fear and hate, which keep their minds closed and their spirits free from any sort of childish innocence. That is the state of mind that feels so alien to me. This irrational pull towards that which is familiar and the uncomfortable feeling of being threatened by something that does not fit within their frame of thought, that's something I haven't felt for an eternity... assuming I ever did feel anything that can be described as such.

Just because some facts may stir an emotion within someone, that doesn't make them any less factual. Besides that, almost every opinion can be offensive to someone, regardless of whether it carries a value judgements. People are, in fact, most offended when you tell them something they know is true but they're not willing to accept for themselves. Why should anyone refrain from voicing his opinion, just because someone doesn't feel comfortable hearing or reading it? Why should a proven fact not be mentioned is someone feels offended by it? Or why should it be wrapped in foil and lint just to make the truth more bearable? Are we not adults with a spine in our back? Should we really all be protected from opinions we may not feel comforable with like little children are sometimes protected from knowing who really brings the gifts on christmas or why they never see their grandmother anymore?

I respect feelings. I just don't think people should treat each other like little children and not tell them there is no Santa or that grandma is tucked away neatly in the ground while her body will rot and her spirit is hopefully reborn into another fine human being. Adults should be able to handle the truth or even just another person's opinion, no matter whether or not they like to hear it.

I think that you have come here and posted in order to stir ***.  I think that you must enjoy the arguments.  

I came here to find a place where I could be myself and express myself true to my Aspie nature. I came here to find a place where I should not constantly step on my toes to avoid people from being offended or annoyed by my talking too much. Somewhere deep inside me, I hoped that Aspies would be a more tolerant, more openminded and more experienced group of people than the average NT. Somehow I hoped they aren't the prisoners of their own fears, prejucides and primal instincts. Somehow I hoped they were better than the people of the town Dogville in Lars Von Trier's masterpiece.

Now I learned that the Aspie community is no better than the rest of mankind. In spite of them not applying to requirements to be declared neurotypical and the hell many of them went through in elementary school and high school, in spite of all that they are still the same petty creatures as the bullies who made their lives miserable. Mankind in general seems to be no better than the Jews in Israel currently abusing the Palestinian people in the most horrible ways after they went through hell themselves no more than 63 years ago.

If you think I enjoy learning all this, then you couldn't be more wrong. The more I meet people like you and your buddies, the more I'm losing all hope for mankind.

It is about unnecessary ribbons and lints.

What I am doing, is just expressing the thought. What you're asking from me, is to conceal the thought by hollow words so no one can really look straight at the words. Not only is this entirely against my nature, I simply don't see the purpose of disguising what you really have to say. I simply don't see how humanity improves by playing a word game with one another all the time. It only makes of us weak individuals unable to deal with criticism.

Besides that, I notice that folks like Korrigan and Maxbear are continuously spouting their purposely offensive and intollerant words, yet no one seems to think that's a problem. Why should they be allowed to defame a person openly and I not even be allowed to express my opinion frankly?

As a high-functioning Aspie (IQ = 137) with unconventional and controversial ideas I'm a minority within a minority within a minority. There's no need telling me how aggressive people can behave when they're confronted with something or someone they do not understand. The problem lies with Max and Ocampo behaving in the exact same way as the homophobes or racists. Certain keywords seem to trigger a Pavlovian reaction that shuts of their capability for rational thought and makes hate speech come out flowing like a mountain river. Their behavior towards me is by no means better than that of the hatemongering homophobe they think they see in me. Like the homophobe's hatred of homosexuals is at least partially based on prejudice, so is the hatred of Max and Ocampo towards me based on prejucide. I am not a homophobe, nor a racist nor whatever these people have called me. I'm just someone with a different opinion.

Illusion, you might consider this....

If everyone around you is an as*h%le, YOU are probably the as*h%le.

In other less offensive words, if you continually encounter the SAME arguments in many places where you go, would it never occur to you that possibly, YOU ARE being offensive?  That possibly, you ARE a racist, antisemite, xenophobe, homophobe, narrowinded, hypocritical, idiotic, supremacist.  

Usually when you encounter the same things over and over again, it is the universe and/or a deity (choose whichever one fits your needs) trying to SHOW YOU SOMETHING.  Otherwise, you end up repeating the same lessons over and over.  

Again, you probably find me very boring now. We do not experience you in real life. We only have your language. And your language has negative connotations. Negative connotations we can not think away like your girlfriend can. She has you to give the non verbal part of communication. She can see how you handle and react. We only have got your words.

Example of the power of words. Years ago a friend of mine, stated women and men were of equal value in his thinking and he saw no discrimination at all. Then, on a sunday, the vicar changed the 'broeders en zusters' into 'zusters en broeders'. He almost left the service because he felt humiliated.
That is the power of language. And his strong reaction did prove that the standard greeting 'broeders en zusters' did give men more respect than women.

(broeders is brothers, zusters is sisters)

Most people who know me in real life, know that I'm quite a nice and kind individual. This includes the people who are very much aware of my political and spiritual views. Unfortunately, I can only express those with a handful of people since many people are indeed as intolerant as you are. That doesn't mean you're right. 99% of the people thinking the world is flat does not make it flat.

I'm not reponsible for people misinterpreting, distorting or leaving out things that I'm saying. I'm not responsible for another person's prejucide. I'm just trying to be honest and frank and if people can't handle it, that's not my problem. I'm lucky I have some very close friends who do have an open mind and that's pretty much all I need.

There's no need telling me that. I learned more about life in the last 8 years than you probably will in your entire life. I don't need an arrogant liberal to tell me how I should or shouldn't think.

THAT. THAT. SO MUCH THAT.

Incidentally, as an even higher functioning Aspie than you (last test I took, I had an IQ of 152), I find you inferior to me. On the basis of your definition, naturally. Maybe I should check my little social Darwinist book of fables for clarification.

Oh and what is it with idiots who defend their right to make blatantly offensive comments by throwing in a few dead psychologists' names? Blah blah blah inferior homosexuals blah blah blah BH SKINNER blah blah blah *yawn* boring and about as interesting and meaningful as a first year sociology student's tutorial presentation.

HAHAHAHAHAHA OMG that has to be the funniest thing I've read today. And discredits you completely as being nothing bar a whining ***-stirrer.

I am sorry, did you call me an arrogant liberal?  What would have given you that impression?  

I am glad you have learned more in your last 8 years than I will ever learn.  Let me bow to you and shed a tear in respect.   Sigh...

And yes, here, people's reactions to your words ARE YOUR PROBLEM.  Hence the last, what, 10 pages of people telling you to shut your mouth.  

Go, run, run to your real life friends, hurry!  If that is "all you need" then get off the forum and stop annoying people.

Actually, at the moment I find you the most interesting person on this board since you're the only one who at least tries to address this issue in a neutral, objective manner and respectful towards all parties. You respect me as an individual in spite of my controversial views, which is a rare gift that I honor.

I simply cannot do what you ask from me. That would be like teaching a dog how to fly.

Besides that, the only change my girlfriend had to make, was stop making assumptions. She had to stop letting her prejudice intervene while determining what I'm actually trying to say.... and the less she let her prejudice speak, the better a person she became. The problem here is not the things that I'm saying but the prejudices other attach to it.

What is to learn from this? Should we now say "brothers and sisters" one time and "sisters and brothers" the next just to make sure we don't offend either gender?!? Who is saner : the person who insists on these silly rules or the person who looks at what's actually being said?

Why do you keep insisting on labeling people as inferior or superior? I never implies I was superior to anyone.

Why is it with these liberals who continuously keep offending people exlicitly while accusing them for making opinions that offended them? How more hypocritical can a person be?

I did not call you an arrogant liberal, however I grant you the freedom to interpret my words like that

Anyway, you're arrogant because your attitude is utterly condescending and I called you a liberal because that self-righteous and arrogant attitude of yours I've found to be most common among liberals.

I hardly see that as a problem, since that's yet another lesson in human nature. In a way, I see every sort of contact with other human beings as a lesson in human nature. Every contact helps me understand my fellow human being just a little more. The last 10 pages were most helpful in making me realise that the Aspie community is just as narrowminded, just as bigoted as the average NT. They were most helpful in making me realise how little hope for mankind remains when it has been reduced to a pathetic bunch of selfish materialistic whiners who feel offended when they receive even the mildest criticism. It is not a lesson I received unreluctantly, but it's nevertheless a valuable one.

Oh, I think it is going to be best if you remove yourself from the situation then.  Really.  

The point is the bold part.
Language does have this power.
Ofcourse literally 'brothers and sisters' means the same as 'sisters and brothers'. But it also means something very different, because you can take the sequense literal too. Both things are true. That's the beauty and the problem of language. For most people it is something they pick up automatically. Others learn it active.

Sure, in private, but when you go to the trouble of making them public, expect them to be discussed. The same goes for when religion prompts action -- the actions and their justification (i.e., the religious thoughts that prompted them) will be discussed.

Discussed and criticized are not the same thing.

Korrigan wipes the spittle off her forehead.  You should cover your mouth when you cough, young man!  

I will see if I can get some things together for you this afternoon.  Real life calls!

Still, the only way to make sure no one is offended is by subsequently saying "brothers and sisters" and "sisters and brothers", because otherwise one of both genders might be offended. From my point of view, such an approach is madness and something only weakhearted souls would do.

No, I'm quite sure you can. But it does take time and guts.
Starting with gender in language is probably the easiest way to get a feeling for what language does. IYou could start to take a tekst about something concerning humans. Most of the times teksts like that are written with 'he', 'him' and 'his' used to mean mankind. What if you took that tekst and replace the 'he', 'him' and 'his' with 'she', 'her' and 'hers'. It may look silly in the beginning. But if you try it sincerely it will change your perspective on language. You might feel annoyed by the female version of the tekst. Or any other reaction might happen. But the chance that it won't make a difference at all to you is small. And if it does make a difference to you it shows you that you can change the use of your language. You don't need ribbons and lints. You might even come closer to the objectivity you seek.

Good luck. I hope you enjoy it. You could also try it together with your girlfriend. It might be profitable for you both.

Now I'm of. I need to eat something.

If a discussion doesn't allow criticism, it isn't a real discussion, it's pandering. If you don't allow criticism, you don't allow debate, period.

Actually, I already did this for some time and I still catch me doing it these days. It doesn't change a rat's *** about how people interpret my words, because it's their own prejudice towards my views and not the way I put them that lead them to feeling offended.

I see that hyke isn't the only one who manages to take neutral point of view and who doesn't feel the need to fling insults in my direction. Maybe there's still SOME hope for mankind

Who said anything about debate?

Nope, I can discuss till the cows come home, and gain information and insight without ever spouting out a criticism.  

For instance:

Bob says, "I like my steak rare."  

I say, "Really, I like mine well done.  Why do you like yours rare?"

He says, "I feel the meat is juicier."

I say, "Oh, that is interesting."

Did I criticize?  Nope.  But we sure did discuss it.

However, if you had this:

Bob says, "I like my steak rare."  

I say, "Really, I like mine well done.  Why do you like yours rare?"

He says, "I feel the meat is juicier."

I say, "That is just disgusting.  I have no idea how you could eat it that way.  The blood running all over, I mean, wow, I really question your judgment, if you can eat rare meat."

Bob says "Well, how can you eat it all dried out like that, I  have seen the way you cook your steaks, they are like hockey pucks."

See, there is a difference.  

In one scenario, I accept Bob's opinion and offer my own.  Everyone is happy.  In the other, everyone ends up being rude to one another and arguing something that is really all a matter of personal opinion.  

Do you see what I mean?

Simen was talking in terms of discussing religion values, not your other bile, you utter ****.

Do you feel there is a relevant difference between discussion and debate here? If you do, then I'll just say that I think anything that falls under either concept should be allowed if you go to the trouble of making your faith public.

So long as there is a fact of the matter, and you disagree with each other, one is wrong and one is right. And so long as one is right and one is wrong, it makes no sense to disallow criticism. One or the other party's criticism is correct!

Basically, so long as there is a fact of the matter, and there most certainly is with religion, discussion, debate, whatever you would like to call it must be allowed. Most people are simply wrong, because most people adhere to a belief system that contradicts every other belief system, and no more than one belief system can be correct. If you don't allow criticism, you won't allow a true, rational discussion, and one such is definitely needed.

When there's a thread called "paganism is great", the opinion that paganism isn't great, for instance, is most certainly relevant and should be allowed, or the forum is nothing more than a pathetic echo chamber.

Is insulting others your trademark or something?

The difference is that the first did not openly gave his opinion while the second did. The second was more honest and honestly apparently implies a greater chance of sounding offensive.

Some folks seem to mentally incapable of getting that.

I found that both situations expressed each others opinions on the question of how they like their steak cooked.   The first situation, however, involved tact, and courtesy, whilst the second one did not, and bordered on offensive.

Sure, you can say that you do not think it is great, that is fine.  That you believe in (insert whatever here).  But when you begin to pass judgment on other people's belief systems, that is not productive in any way.

If tact implies leaving out a lot of information, I don't see the point of tact.

Do you pass judgement on national-socialism or fascism? If yes, then why shouldn't someone else be allowed to pass judgement on wicca or another more generally accepted belief system? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to say that another person's beliefs are bunk when they can give rational arguments for that opinion?

Is insulting others your trademark or something?

Pot. Kettle. Black - oh sorry, I meant negro.

Good call.  That was my point.  

One offered respect.  One offered the other person to keep their opinion on how they liked their steak cooked, without causing them to feel that they need to defend that opinion, that they need to argue, of all things, why THEY LIKE SOMETHING in a particular way.  

In the first scenario, you can leave going, oh, yeah, I need to remember that if I ever need to cook Bob a steak.  

In the second, you think, that Bob, what an ***.  And Bob thinks, well that is the last time I try to talk to her about anything.  Geez...  

We know, really we do.

The point of tact within a discussion is to promote the peaceful exchange of ideas, without another being forced to Defend their choice. (used the word defend on purpose here)   The point of tact within debates is to prevent personal attacks on other people, and it helps keep the conversation moving, resulting in the betterment and the education of all, on not just one idea, that someone has to keep defending, but on other ideas as well, branching off from the single idea at the beginning of a discussion.   (Sort of like in a science class, where when the discussion keeps moving, you can move from talking about nonmetals, to metalloids to metals.  they are varying things, but they are still chemical elements.  Much like Wicca and other forms of paganism are all related through their pagan connections.)

Report, again, wow, how many times can you be reported in one day?  NT bashing is no more acceptable than the other piles of bashing you insist on.  

Such conversations tend to be utterly boring and contribute to nothing. For me, the exchange of ideas only gets interesting the soon one person has to defend his ideas. Otherwise it's just background noise. If there's anything I hate, it's plain old smalltalk.

So now I'm NT bashing?!? One can't even criticise the importance of social conventions among NTs either? Is there any sort of critical remark you guys can handle except the explicitly offensive words you oust yourself?!?!

Anyway, I should really be off doing something better than addressing the bigoted remarks from you guys. I'm reaaaally off now.

Korrigan picks up her giant pooper scooper and hopes she does not get any Illusion on her...ew.

If "your belief system is wrong" is passing judgement, then you have to allow passing judgement. But if "your belief system is wrong and you're a stupid idiot *******" is passing judgement, then I agree with you.

Actually you are going to need to be more clear than that.  

I think it is wrong.  I feel like it is wrong.  In my opinion it is wrong.  For me, it is wrong. Those are all acceptable.

It is wrong, is not acceptable.  You do not have to allow that judgment.  I will not allow it, and I will not pass it against others either.

Wow. "It's wrong" isn't acceptable? So you think religion should be exempt from criticism after all. If I can say that "1 + 1 = 3" is wrong, then I should be able to say that "God created the Earth in seven days" is wrong, or that "you will be reincarnated when you die" is wrong.

That's not judgment, it's simply common sense. That God created Earth in seven days isn't just wrong for me, it's simply wrong, plain and simple.

Nope, you do not have the power to judge "It's wrong."  You are not that powerful.  

Many many many people (not me) believe that God created the earth in 7 days.  What makes you powerful enough to decide that that is wrong?

The force of evidence.

Only as you "see" the evidence.  To me, the whole friggin point of religion is belief, not proof.

However, I totally accept that you have no belief in the concept of reincarnation or that God made the world in 7 days.  I do not think that your belief is wrong.  I respect it as your thoughts and feelings.  To you, those things have been evidentially proven to be inaccurate.  To others, they have been evidentially proven to be accurate.  

I just do not think that anyone should have the right to say that another person's religious beliefs are WRONG.  

Then you don't believe in science. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for me and the rest of humanity, science is right on this one. Religious beliefs are subject to evidence just like all other beliefs. They can be right, they can be wrong. There is only one world, and it would be a contradiction if several wordlviews describing this world in contradictory terms were both right. Therefore, they aren't; there is only one correct worldview. None of us have the correct worldview, but some of us are closer than others.

Others may have the erroneous belief that their beliefs have been proven to be accurate, but they're wrong. Science tells us, among other things, roughly how the solar system formed, and how the planets formed, and it did not involve a god.

Then you don't believe in science. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for me and the rest of humanity, science is right on this one. Religious beliefs are subject to evidence just like all other beliefs. They can be right, they can be wrong. There is only one world, and it would be a contradiction if several wordlviews describing this world in contradictory terms were both right. Therefore, they aren't; there is only one correct worldview. None of us have the correct worldview, but some of us are closer than others.

If science proves them wrong, they're wrong. That's not a matter of personal opinion but a matter of fact.

Don't you see the danger in people pursuing beliefs that have been proven to be wrong? Don't you see you are extremely judgemental yourself when it comes to my views? Don't you nptice the irony?

Anyway, I'm going to continue what I was doing. Just my 2 cents here....

This practice is not directly leading to you changing the language you use. It is meant to get more sensitive about what language is saying beside the literal things you do understand. It can make that you pick up the literal things in language you did not notice before. And that can make communication a lot easier. It is not a simple trick I am proposing. It takes effort, guts and time. And it can be great to do with your partner. It has helped me a lot in communication.

You gave me a compliment in this thread. I appreciate that. But the skills to be able to answer you like I do is learned the way I describe.
Reading books about the use of language can help you too. For example about the rethoric of sexuality (seksegebonden taalgebruik). Most of these studies come from feministic researchers. I think the really theoretical stuff might interest you.

And you won't learn it overnight. It will take time. Lots of time. But it can be fun too. Especially when you are trying with your partner. And language can become richer than you imagined before. Thus becoming a more delicate, rich and precise tool to communicate.

I respect your right to your thoughts and beliefs.  I am hopeful that you also respect mine.  

Science, by the way, is rather imperfect, and is proven wrong, well, often.

If by respect your views you mean "don't tell me I'm wrong", then I'm afraid I don't respect your views.

By science, of course. Science is superseded by new science. Science isn't wrong on this one, though. The chances of that are about as large as the chances that the moon is a cheese.

You can tell me I am wrong all you want.  But I will continue to be offended by it and I will believe, that in fact, your actions, are wrong.  

*Korrigan sits calmly munching on some moon cheese.*

If by respect your views you mean "don't tell me I'm wrong", then I'm afraid I don't respect your views.

By science, of course. Science is superseded by new science. Science isn't wrong on this one, though. The chances of that are about as large as the chances that the moon is a cheese.
[/quote]

I'm afraid these people are too irrational to even get the faintest idea of where you're coming from. They seem to care more about not making others feel bad than about truth and righteousness. They're like overprotective mothers who want to make sure their baby is never exposed to any sort of harm at all and that they are never exposed to profanity, but who ultimately lead them into great danger this way because they child develops no way of making judgements for himself/herself.... and he/she ends up spending time with the wrong people because these people show him/her everything their parents neatly tucked away.

Oh, the irony. I assume that's deliberate.

I second that.

Only on a forum!  As I am not going anywhere...

That has got to be the most ironic thing I've read from you in oooh the past 30 minutes. Didn't you have something more important to do?

It's fantastically arrogant to suggest that anyone who thinks religion is wrong doesn't understand religion. You said paganism is great, this is a discussion forum, what did you expect to happen -- something other than discussion?

Yeah.... I'm about to go smoke a joint and shill for a moment before I grab a bit and continue cleaning up the room. That's definitely more useful than reading all that ***.

If you think my words are irony, you obviously don't have a clue. Besides Simen, Hyke and myself, I haven't spotted a single rational person in this thread, anyway. Where are all those IT-geek-Aspies when you need them?!

I agree. As various posters stated, and I said, this was a thread for Ethel to express her beliefs for herself. The thread started out as fun, something that was personal to her. Not something to be dissected.

Or rather, the individualistic viewpoint of it. In this case, Ethel's. It wasn't a debate thread. Ethel wasn't trying to force her viewpoint on anyone or say her beliefs were right or wrong, just beliefs that she used to enrichen her life.

Apologies, Ethel.

My apologies too.  I really liked the thread when it was first started.  I thought it was very interesting!

Aren't you very intelligent? Oh, and incidentally, I am an IT geek Aspie. I just don't use my Aspergers as an excuse to be a **** oxygen thieving piece of supremacist scum like you.

Oooooooo! Me too! Me too! I want some!

yes, pity it was then raped by bigots, strangled and dumped in the bushes.

Simen, my religion brings me a lot of comfort.  No, I don't think you understand that, or you'd just respect that it helps me and not keep trying to rub fecal matter over it.

Illusion, I hope you enjoy smoking your bong more than you enjoy interactin with we mere primitive irrational specimens.

Nobody's forcing either of you to hang around.

No it was not discussion. It was sharing. I admit that I'm partly responsible of letting the thread derail. I got lost between the tolerance thread and this one. But Ethel sharing her faith is something completely different from laying her beliefs on the disectiontable.

Mods, think it might be worth checking IPs etc if possible. Illusion made a reference to 'IT geeks when you need them ' and the style of writing, topic of discussion etc is all too similar to logical conclusion for my liking.

And lets face it, we all know what that dickwipe was like with a computer.

Checked IP addresses very early on... *grins*

And nope, he's a new one.

Thank you, Hyke.  It is.

ah ha, got it in before the lock!