Thread Continuation from World Events - Religion & Abuse

[StrawDog]

There's a *subtle* difference between a wide interpretation of "Be good to parents, relatives, orphans, and the needy. Speak kindly and pay the poor-due" and "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not."

It is "strongly suggested" in each example to be nice, and be nasty, respectively.

I understand you are speaking broadly, but of course you are being selective. There are plenty appeals to the former (Be good to parents, relatives, orphans, and the needy) in the Qur'an, and as we know the Christian OT is brimful of smiting and eye for eye stuff. And of course as we saw from the Inquisition, Christianity is open to interpretation that can lead to gross violence.

It is a great danger to write, say, "Kick the asses of left-handed people", in a book subject to interpretation. Interpretation or not, more, much more than likely you are going to have people who say, "Hey, it says here, "Kick the asses of left-handed people", and, ya know what, I'll just do that, because I really want to be a good follower! The best, to the letter!".

Of course, as can be seen from the Salem Witch Trails.

That's the problem of having "sacred" books, you are not allowed to reject for fear of hellfire, books that also have atrocious "suggestions".

Yes, and in essence, all religious texts include such suggestions that open the door to abuse. Thats human nature. :m:

 

[Lori_7]

I understand you are speaking broadly, but of course you are being selective. There are plenty appeals to the former (Be good to parents, relatives, orphans, and the needy) in the Qur'an, and as we know the Christian OT is brimful of smiting and eye for eye stuff. And of course as we saw from the Inquisition, Christianity is open to interpretation that can lead to gross violence.

Of course, as can be seen from the Salem Witch Trails.

Yes, and in essence, all religious texts include such suggestions that open the door to abuse. Thats human nature. :m:

i think we can all agree that to love is to war. because it is not in our nature, and it is not widely accepted in ideology or in practice.

the key questions being what is your intent, and what is your method? the answer to both is the same...to love.

it is a war inside ourselves and a war with each other, and it is not easy.

but it is easy, when you realize that it is the only answer. when you feel it given from god and are transformed into something that is invincible, no matter what. even in the face of atrocities done in the name of religion. we are not religion. we are human beings. each of us as valuable as the other, and each of us capable of loving and being loved. this is god, and this is the message of christ.

and i am a living testimony to that love.

 

[Café Cappuccino]

Yes, and in essence, all religious texts include such suggestions that open the door to abuse. Thats human nature. :m:

You missed the point of my post.

It is a great danger to write, say, "Kick the asses of left-handed people", in a book subject to interpretation. Interpretation or not, more, much more than likely you are going to have people who say, "Hey, it says here, "Kick the asses of left-handed people", and, ya know what, I'll just do that, because I really want to be a good follower! The best, to the letter!".

The point is, what the Quran (and Bible, now that we're at it!) states is not a verbal roulette, where anything can be interpreted in any way.

There's a *subtle* difference between a wide interpretation of "Be good to parents, relatives, orphans, and the needy. Speak kindly and pay the poor-due" and "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not."

It is "strongly suggested" in each example to be nice, and be nasty, respectively.

That's the point. The Quran is one nasty piece of [wr]it. Let's face it.

If the Quran were written with good intentions in mind, it should have been written as I suggested in my original post:

If I were to "suggest" and not "command", I would say, "Hey you know what, you might want to consider choking your cat if you think that will help", and not, "Verily I say to you, choke thy cat!".

But it is not. The Quran is quite arguably a source of trouble, and not an innocuous target of weird human interpretations.

 

[StrawDog]

i think we can all agree that to love is to war. because it is not in our nature, and it is not widely accepted in ideology or in practice.

the key questions being what is your intent, and what is your method? the answer to both is the same...to love.

it is a war inside ourselves and a war with each other, and it is not easy.

but it is easy, when you realize that it is the only answer. when you feel it given from god and are transformed into something that is invincible, no matter what. even in the face of atrocities done in the name of religion. we are not religion. we are human beings. each of us as valuable as the other, and each of us capable of loving and being loved. this is god, and this is the message of christ.

and i am a living testimony to that love.

Apologies for the delay Lori. I know you are sincere in your faith, good for you. Sadly, human nature is the most confounding of G_d`s creations.

 

[StrawDog]

You missed the point of my post.
The point is, what the Quran (and Bible, now that we're at it!) states is not a verbal roulette, where anything can be interpreted in any way.

Ah. OK. The Books, indicate that they are the infallible word of G_d. Gotcha.

That's the point. The Quran is one nasty piece of [wr]it. Let's face it.

No more or less than any other religious text.

If the Quran were written with good intentions in mind, it should have been written as I suggested in my original post:

Nothing wrong with that logic.

But it is not. The Quran is quite arguably a source of trouble, and not an innocuous target of weird human interpretations.

As are all religious texts. In defense of the Qur`an, we may note that due to the current demonization of Islam in light of the "War on Terror", this view is overinflated and not in line with mainstream Islam, the vast majority of who view Islam as a religion of peace.

 

[Hapsburg]

Yes, and in essence, all religious texts include such suggestions that open the door to abuse.

Ah, but not all religions are centred around such immutable texts. My religion, for example, is centred around tradition and traditional practices; beliefs are far more variable, and the beliefs that are common to all practitioners do not advocate abuse of any stripe.

 

[StrawDog]

Ah, but not all religions are centred around such immutable texts. My religion, for example, is centred around tradition and traditional practices; beliefs are far more variable, and the beliefs that are common to all practitioners do not advocate abuse of any stripe.

That is a very valid comment. The question most likely is whether your "religion" is considered a religion in the normal sense? IOW from whence and how does your deity reveal him/herself if not from immutable texts?

 

[Hapsburg]

The question most likely is whether your "religion" is considered a religion in the normal sense?

Well, it's among the largest neopagan religions. And neopaganism, taken as a umbrella term, is on the census.

IOW from whence and how does your deity reveal him/herself if not from immutable texts?

Personal experience, whether in a group or in solitary practice; or, as another term goes, UPG- unverifiable personal gnosis. Connection with the divine is generally considered a highly personal thing, regardless or the manner in which it is formed. Wicca places less (but not zero) emphasis on beliefs, and more on ritual and retaining traditional practices.

 

[Lori_7]

Apologies for the delay Lori. I know you are sincere in your faith, good for you. Sadly, human nature is the most confounding of G_d`s creations.

from my own experience i have found that as fear diminishes, love flourishes.

 

[StrawDog]

Well, it's among the largest neopagan religions. And neopaganism, taken as a umbrella term, is on the census.


Personal experience, whether in a group or in solitary practice; or, as another term goes, UPG- unverifiable personal gnosis. Connection with the divine is generally considered a highly personal thing, regardless or the manner in which it is formed. Wicca places less (but not zero) emphasis on beliefs, and more on ritual and retaining traditional practices.

So by practicing the rituals of Wicca, one achieves UPG? A type of trance state?

 

[StrawDog]

from my own experience i have found that as fear diminishes, love flourishes.

Ah. You are so positive. Especially after everything you have been through.

I wish it were that easy. :m:

 

[Hapsburg]

So by practicing the rituals of Wicca, one achieves UPG? A type of trance state?

Well, trance states are one possible means of communicating with the divine. But that's not the only one.
And it's not as clear-cut as "practise Wicca, and you will have a UPG experience". It's not like practising Wicca is the only way to have a personal divine experience.
My point was that connection with the divine is a personal thing. The emphasis in Wicca, as a religion, is on orthopraxy- maintaining traditional practices. Which is to say that, if one claims to be a Wiccan, they have to practise rituals in a certain manner, rather than hold a specific theological view.

 

[StrawDog]

Well, trance states are one possible means of communicating with the divine. But that's not the only one.
And it's not as clear-cut as "practise Wicca, and you will have a UPG experience". It's not like practising Wicca is the only way to have a personal divine experience.
My point was that connection with the divine is a personal thing. The emphasis in Wicca, as a religion, is on orthopraxy- maintaining traditional practices. Which is to say that, if one claims to be a Wiccan, they have to practise rituals in a certain manner, rather than hold a specific theological view.

Ah, OK. That is clear. Is their a hierarchy in Wicca? Like a respected elder system?

 

[Hapsburg]

Wicca isn't organised in any broad way. There are small groups, called covens; but these are like, a dozen people. When they get sizeable, they "hive off" into other ones, and lineage can be traced through this. Lineages that share common quirks in practice and belief are called "Traditions", e.g. the Gardnerian Tradition, which is the oldest British Wiccan sect. But Traditions are rarely organised together in any formal way. Within a coven, though, there is a hierarchy system; three degrees of priests, with a high priest or priestess leading services and rituals. Traditionally, there are an equal number of male and female priests, and an HP/HPS whose gender depends on the group's preference.

Furthermore, the majority of Wiccans today are solitary practitioners- not part of any group, but using public material to practise Wicca on their own. The trouble with that is that a lot of practitioners don't know what they're doing, and instead free-wheel it; claiming bullshit like "Wiccan can be anything you want it to be". This irritates me, because I have done extensive research into Wicca's history and traditions. Too many solitaries have total disrespect for the things that make Wicca what it is.

Oh, and if you want to know more about that issue, I recommend this site. It's very informative.

 

[StrawDog]

Wicca isn't organised in any broad way. There are small groups, called covens; but these are like, a dozen people. When they get sizeable, they "hive off" into other ones, and lineage can be traced through this. Lineages are called "Traditions", e.g. the Gardnerian Tradition, which is the oldest British Wiccan sect. But Traditions are rarely organised together in any formal way. Within a coven, though, there is a hierarchy system; three degrees of priests, with a high priest or priestess leading services and rituals. Traditionally, there are an equal number of male and female priests, and an HP/HPS whose gender depends on the group's preference.

Furthermore, the majority of Wiccans today are solitary practitioners- not part of any group, but using public material to practise Wicca on their own. The trouble with that is that a lot of practitioners don't know what they're doing, and instead free-wheel it; claiming bullshit like "Wiccan can be anything you want it to be". This irritates me, because I have done extensive research into Wicca's history and traditions. Too many solitaries have total disrespect for the things that make Wicca what it is.

Oh, and if you want to know more about that issue, I recommend this site. It's very informative.

Thanks for answering my questions and sharing this information. Good on you friend. eace:

The reason I was asking about hierarchies, is that this could be a platform for abuse. But the way you have described Wicca, is that its a perfect environment for free-thinkers, and so I doubt if unquestioned subservience (and thus abuse) would be common.