It makes more sense, but really the words are not important.
I am not of the Abrahamic faiths.
"Hello, is there anybody in there...?" A call to pagans, pantheists, and assorted...
- Thread starter Tht1Gy!
- Start date
It makes more sense, but really the words are not important.
I am not of the Abrahamic faiths.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I think there is a tendency to allay fear by breaking things down into pieces. This is much of the scientific approach to nature and life. What are the components of life? We cannot trust that we have the ability to recognize wholes and sense life directly. Thus they came up with definitions using life forms that were similar to them and moving outward. Constructing a list of qualities - or portions of the experience or potential experience of a life form - like the list Enmos had in a post a while back in this thread.
Implicit is the idea that we cannot directly sense life and must have a checklist.
This is an attempt to avoid intution and to conquer the problem of other minds.
Unfortunately what it does is denies the very real experience we have when confronted by another life form, either close to us - say a member of the opposite sex - a little further away - say, a mammal - or even further off into encounters with life not currently acknowledged as such by scientists in general - many exceptions to this of course.
Even though this direct appraisal of another life form was MORE effective than science in the case of animals, when many lay people and pagans recognized the intelligence and subjectivity of animals while it was taboo to acknowledge this in science. (of course in private many scientists certainly spoke about their pets emotions, etc.)
Somewhere along the way a decision was made to set aside a perceptive ability because of what can and might go wrong with it.
And so we break our intution into pieces. And then we say it is not intuition. We say each of these pieces of intuition is actually merely reason - which is not the case. Anytime an idea is connected to the world ONE MUST USE INTUITION.
I hereby declare that I no longer accept any contracts made where I gave up intution and the appraisal of wholes.
Implicit is the idea that we cannot directly sense life and must have a checklist.
This is an attempt to avoid intution and to conquer the problem of other minds.
Unfortunately what it does is denies the very real experience we have when confronted by another life form, either close to us - say a member of the opposite sex - a little further away - say, a mammal - or even further off into encounters with life not currently acknowledged as such by scientists in general - many exceptions to this of course.
Even though this direct appraisal of another life form was MORE effective than science in the case of animals, when many lay people and pagans recognized the intelligence and subjectivity of animals while it was taboo to acknowledge this in science. (of course in private many scientists certainly spoke about their pets emotions, etc.)
Somewhere along the way a decision was made to set aside a perceptive ability because of what can and might go wrong with it.
And so we break our intution into pieces. And then we say it is not intuition. We say each of these pieces of intuition is actually merely reason - which is not the case. Anytime an idea is connected to the world ONE MUST USE INTUITION.
I hereby declare that I no longer accept any contracts made where I gave up intution and the appraisal of wholes.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, the words are important, at least if you want anyone but you or fellow believers else to know what you're talking about.
"Spirit" and "energy" are better terms than "life", using the latter just confuses things.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The properties of life as defined by science are unique in the universe. Agree ?
It's just categorizing..
Sense life ? Explain.
It is an attempt to categorize objects with unique properties, just as we have categorized fruits, rocks, birds, etc. as a group.
I disagree.
What is your point here ?
Explain ?
Intuition is very important and scientists use it all the time.
But intuition can be wrong, that's why scientists test and double check their tests before claiming a perceived truth.
There is no other way.
I'm not sure I know what you mean here.
Intuition provides much, but you can't use only that. You have to analyse intuitive ideas with reason. You have to sceptical with everything that you read and hear to get something true out of it. I always take what I read in books on Wicca with a grain of salt, analysing the information afterwards to see if it holds water. A combination of reason, logic, intuition, and empiricism lead to knowledge; no single one thing can.
What's your point, Enmos.:shrug: Are you truly trying to understand? Or are you trying to get Simon and me to question our beliefs? You don't have to agree with us, that's fine. Remember, We're not christians; we're not trying to convert you, but it's starting to feel like you're trying to convert us. That doesn't seem to be your style, but surely we've given you enough info to explain our position.
Pantheism isn't a "religion". There isn't a "First Church of Holy Blessed Pantheism" (well, there might be 1
) it's more of a perspective, or paradigm.
It is viewing everything as sacred; everything as divine, everything as One.
George Carlin said it well when he said "Love your self, love your neighbor, love your god, cuz your all the same guy"!
On a side note, just FYI; not all pantheists are pagan, and visa versa.
I, for a long time, didn't use the word pagan, I have never planted crops.
And a lot of pagans are not pantheists. They believe in a corporeal god/ess, or many.
Pantheism isn't a "religion". There isn't a "First Church of Holy Blessed Pantheism" (well, there might be 1
) it's more of a perspective, or paradigm. It is viewing everything as sacred; everything as divine, everything as One.
George Carlin said it well when he said "Love your self, love your neighbor, love your god, cuz your all the same guy"!
On a side note, just FYI; not all pantheists are pagan, and visa versa.
I, for a long time, didn't use the word pagan, I have never planted crops
.And a lot of pagans are not pantheists. They believe in a corporeal god/ess, or many.
Haha! First Church of Holy Blessed Pantheism. Love it!
I didn't use the word 'pagan' for a long time either...every time I say it people ask me if I'm a Satanist. Seriously, wtf? Maybe I should just say I belong to the First Church of Holy Blessed Pantheism and then they'll at least just think I'm some sort of new-agey flower child...that is if they even know what the word 'pantheism' means
.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I am
Why ? Is it working ?
Nah..
Yes you have, and I understand you position now, but I don't get why you would have such a position.. (see bottom argument).
Yep.
But that still requires a concept of God.
I think god is redundant in your religion from what you've explained.
I am debating as if you are all pantheists.. if that's why the discussion is not working in your opinion, could you point out the difference between paganism and pantheism and who is what ?
Tht1gy!, I get your position but my problem lies with your definition of life..
"Life" is defined as a group of objects that share a specific set of characteristics. It is completely beyond me why someone would expand that definition to other objects that don't have those characteristics.
What is the point ? "Life" is only a word.
For all I care you call animals, plants, fungi, protists and perhaps viruses "life", and everything else "animate life" or "non-cellular life" or something. As long as you make a distinction.
I'm still trying to get you guys to acknowledge that objects fitting the scientific definition of life are unique in their characteristics from everything else, and thus worthy of their own term, "life".
"Apple" is a defined concept, it has a unique set of characteristics and that is why we have a unique name for it. Lets call this unique set of characteristics appleness.
It is as if you guys are saying that everything has appleness. Bananas, cars, rocks, etc.
I am saying that is wrong, that only apples have appleness.
I hope that cleared things up
The problem I have with people who refer to themselves as "pagan" is that the term simply means "Not Christian".
If you call yourself "not Christian" does that mean you base your belief system and identity on being "not Christian"?
The sad fact is that many do.
Many of those I have met who are "pagan", are so for no other reason than it is what mom and dad are not.
This is especially true for "Wiccans".
I ask them why they are pagan or Wiccan, and for too often the response I get is filled with statements about Christiantiy and how horrible it is.
If someone asks, "Who are you?
Do you reply, "Not my stupid parents." or, "Not Bill".
Or do you reply, "I am..."
Do you let others define who you are? Do you define yourself by what you are running away from?
If you call yourself "not Christian" does that mean you base your belief system and identity on being "not Christian"?
The sad fact is that many do.
Many of those I have met who are "pagan", are so for no other reason than it is what mom and dad are not.
This is especially true for "Wiccans".
I ask them why they are pagan or Wiccan, and for too often the response I get is filled with statements about Christiantiy and how horrible it is.
If someone asks, "Who are you?
Do you reply, "Not my stupid parents." or, "Not Bill".
Or do you reply, "I am..."
Do you let others define who you are? Do you define yourself by what you are running away from?
Go for it. :thumbsup: Let us know how that works out for you.
I will! I'm going to do it...just to see the looks on peoples faces! LOL. You know, most people assume I am a Satanist because I wear a pentagram and I get so sick of that, and then (random story) I'm at the gas station I go to every day and there is this new kid working and he asks me about my necklace and I'm thinkin' "great, here we go again", but before I can say anything he asks me if I'm pagan and I was like "YES!! what about you?" and you know what this guy says? He says, "Oh, I'm a Satanist". Yeah, great buddy. Just freakin' great.
The term 'Pagan' actually refers (in original context) to the farmers who worshipped the 'old god/esses' and refused to convert. The first definition in the dictionary refers to a polytheistic religion, then goes on to say 'not Christian', 'hedonist', 'no religion', blah, blah,blah.
Assuming that all Pagans/Wiccans, which by the way, are two very different things, only believe in what they believe because they're rebelling against their parents is a common stereotype and misconception. It would be like saying all Christians are fundamentalists or fanatics or believe only in the OT. The media has done a great job of portraying Pagans/Wiccans/Witches etc. in a wonderful light with movies like The Craft and Charmed, but really, we're not all punk kids who dress in black and want to kill ourselves. I'm actually writing my College senior seminar paper on misconceptions of women involved in witchcraft in post WWII America. It should be interesting.
I just met my first Satanist (at the gas station) and I have to say I was a little disappointed. Aside from the spikes sticking out of his Am/Pm hat, he looked quite normal (damn
). I was hoping for more eye-liner and dramatic flair. Sadly, no. My Satanist works at the gas station. This is my bias showing of course .
A term coined by Christians to refer to "others".
I know they are two very different things.
I'm likely a lot more versed in this than you think.
I married a former Wiccan, and have known quite a few "pagans".
I did not say that all pagans only believe that because they are rebelling against their parents - I said that the majority that I have known are.
I am speaking from my personal experience, and I as I said, it is sad.
The fluff bunnies and dejected children cause this stereotype and cloud some extraordinarily beautiful belief systems.
The simple fact of the matter is that all the gods, goddesses and stories of the polytheistic old world religions appeal to lost little children who are desperately trying to cling onto their childhood innocence and run away from their parents established ideas and the cruel, hard world.
If someone can pretend to be a witch and believe in faeries and beautiful goddesses, they can escape the harsh realities of the world they were thrust into.
I would actually be interested in reading it.
Are you planning on posting it here?
Well, I haven't been involved from the beginning, but I'll interject a bit.One_raven can reply as well of course
Let me ask you this...
I am fairly sure you are aware of Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis.
Does earth itself not exhibit all the characteristics of an organism - of life?