Enmos
Valued Senior Member
"Hello, is there anybody in there...?" A call to pagans, pantheists, and assorted...
- Thread starter Tht1Gy!
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ok, I still don't know what wooden shoes have to do with the topic though.
Where do you live ? Why do you think we all wear wooden shoes ?
No. Does not matter:
The first rubber soled shoes called plimsolls were developed and manufactured in the United States in the late 1800s. In 1892, nine small rubber manufacturing companies consolidated to form the U.S. Rubber Company. Among them was the Goodyear Metallic Rubber Shoe Company, organized in the 1840s in Naugatuck, Connecticut. This company was the first licensee of a new manufacturing process called vulcanization, discovered and patented by Charles Goodyear. Vulcanization uses heat to meld rubber to cloth or other rubber components for a sturdier, more permanent bond.
On January 24, 1899, Humphrey O'Sullivan received the first patent for a rubber heel for shoes.
The first rubber soled shoes called plimsolls were developed and manufactured in the United States in the late 1800s. In 1892, nine small rubber manufacturing companies consolidated to form the U.S. Rubber Company. Among them was the Goodyear Metallic Rubber Shoe Company, organized in the 1840s in Naugatuck, Connecticut. This company was the first licensee of a new manufacturing process called vulcanization, discovered and patented by Charles Goodyear. Vulcanization uses heat to meld rubber to cloth or other rubber components for a sturdier, more permanent bond.
On January 24, 1899, Humphrey O'Sullivan received the first patent for a rubber heel for shoes.
Belief-o-Matic:
1. Neo-Pagan (100%)
2. New Age (91%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (89%)
4. Mahayana Buddhism (80%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (73%)
6. Jainism (71%)
”
OK so it was a nonsequetur. Only to that post though Check the previous post, 227 the post right before it, sheesh!
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ah ok.. but that doesn't mean anything. You don't want to know what my list was.
Interesting.
I view the God and Goddess of Wicca as individual deities, who exist both outside our universe as literal beings, and inside our universe as Nature. I think that they both emanate from The All, or a source of all spiritual energy that composes everything. Like Panentheism.
But, I also view the many other gods of Indo-European mythologies as existing, alongside the God and Goddess, or perhaps as their subordinates; but that is difficult to ascertain.
An assumption and misconception based on the more fluffy neo-Wiccans which, thankfully, constitute only a vocal minority (much like Christian fundamentalists). As for New Age- just, no; Wicca and New Ageism are unrelated and unconnected belief systems, and New Agers claiming to be Wiccan are more often than not pretty damn foolish.Wiccans are, no offense, but the most homogenous group new age imbeciles and far leftists I have ever met.
And the far-left thing: most of the early Wiccans in 1930s and 40s Britain were members of the Conservative Party, and were fairly conservative in any case; reasonably so, since they were dedicated to resurrecting what they saw as a traditional pagan religion. Most now, in the United States, are moderate leftists.
Not trying to proselytise, of course; just rectifying the wrong information you provided.
My socialism has no consequence nor connection to my religion. Even so, I'm more of a Libertarian Socialist or a Democratic Socialist than a Marxist.
It's not literally three times. As I've heard it, the Threefold Law means it is affecting you mentally, physically, and spiritually.
However, I don't like the "Threefold Law" concept because it gets too tied up in numbers. I call it the "Law of Return" which is based in the idea of karma from Eastern Religions, but primarily in the aspect that you must take responsibility for you actions and that every act has a consequence.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Gotta go to work. Later, 'K?
Try a re-read.
No.. :shrug:
Post 120:
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Yes, it was me who coined it, at least here, recently. But it's misleading. (a dead metaphor is a metphor we no longer realize is a metaphor. a dead paradigm would either be one no longer used or one we no longer realize is simply a way of looking at things. thus a category and not the specific paradigm I was referring to.)
So....
Paradigm of the lifeless.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Well, I think I have in this thread. But here goes.Yes, I figured that
Could you please define it ?
The Paradigm of Lifelessness:
The universe is primarily lifeless. Living things are the very rare exception. Thus it is best to assume that a thing is lifeless unless it can be proven otherwise. The more a thing is like homo-sapians the more likely it is alive and sentient.
as opposed to:
The universe is primarily alive: lifelessness is the exception. Thus it is best to assume that a thing is alive, unless it can be proven otherwise. Life can take on a wide variety of forms, speeds and types of intelligence. Homo sapians, like all other life forms, are exceptions within that wide variety of life.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I'm indifferent to them, but in these forms I'm going for the second one because I dislike the bold part in the first.
It is important to know what definition of life you are using, so if you please ?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
au contraire - you made it clear that you are a classic supporter of the second.
Has awareness and preferences.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I'm indifferent.
Both paradigms say:
"Thus it is best to assume that a thing is lifeless unless it can be proven otherwise"
I consider a rock proven lifeless.
It's all about the definition of "life".
And I absolutely abhor the bold part.
Hmm that's not a really helpful definition for anyone..
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
"
No they don't. Only one does.
Then why do keep going on about, for example, cells.
I think you mean you disagree.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Heh.. my bad.
I meant: "Thus it is best to assume that a thing is ... unless it can be proven otherwise"
I don't understand.. Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution.
Hmm yes I do, but it also isn't a useful definition. I mean how would you test it ?
This definition leads to "We don't know what is alive in what is not", or worse "Only humans are alive".