True, Prayer & Ritual can be an expression of our unconditional love. I didn’t mean to imply the only way one can pray is if asking for something (that to me is selfish and sometimes the first learned form of prayer). Once people realise love is pretty much the best way to use prayer they’re beginning to learn the more mystical ways of faith. Transcending mere form of ritual, I see ritual just as a key to unlock the love. Cheesy or what!
Yes, a lot of “Pagan†traditions were integrated into Christianity. Easter came from the rebirth of many former deities.
December 25 was also a Pagan date. It was also common to build new temples upon the only ones. That’s how they where able to find a lot of the old temples.
Here’s something I wrote in an old thread… click the link beside “wrote by:”
Okay, well, I’m going to offer my uneducated opinion.
Witchcraft: Number of witches killed by Catholic Church – somewhere between 100,000 and zero. Witchcraft scares possibly caused by ergot fungus poisoning on spoiled rye. (This is the source for LSD.) According to one history, the Catholics found no witches while Protestants did.
Symbols: Jung says we all see similar ones. Peter says in his letters that the Christian symbolisms were previously in the old religions, but that now they are found in a historically believed one. (A first generation observation, which says to me he saw both the reality and the symbol and was not confounded.)
Much of my information is highly reliable, having been heard on PBS.
Prayer and ritual are not the same. Prayer is for the purpose of becoming vulnerable so that we can become open. If it is used as a soapbox for the expression of unconditional love especially when we are incapable of Unconditional love, it only denies us the experience of vulnerability and any resultant opening serving only to feed our egotism.
Where Paganism and Christendom have many similarities, Paganism and Christianity have one essential difference. Paganism asserts the importance of man’s attachment to the earth so naturally wants to build a happy life going with the flow of the earth. Christianity, though respecting the garden or the earth and its purposes, asserts man has a higher calling then just being part of the earth so while respecting it, desires freedom of attachment to it.
The egg for example is symbolic of recurrent cyclical life life on earth including the transitions of seasons. An animal lays an egg which hatches into a new representative of the species and life continues.
However, the egg is also symbolic of transcendent life where a man’s personality is an egg shell and the living essence within has the possibility of hatching into something more than this shell which is our normal existence that has become so dominant that it starves the living essence within creating the psychological condition described in the Bible by Jesus as “Let the dead bury their dead.”
During the times of Heraclitus the Dark, there was also an Irishman known as Murphy the Absurd who was well hidden. The essence of his teaching was preserved in what is now known as “Murphy’s Law” which states that “Whatever can go wrong will do so.”
Keeping this in mind the reasoning, or lack of. behind this great witch controversy becomes clear. Christianity by this time was well hidden and Christendom had become a public influence and a source of power alien to Christianity. This created many experts in “right and wrong” and various committees of these experts gathered and came to the conclusion with the help of various adult beverages that these “witches” were clearly wrong.
Many of these “witches” however were also under the influence of self deception thinking that without consciousness and will, they were capable of anything magical beyond what can be mechanically produced through ritual. They were living a fantasy life which was attractive to others interested in a fantasy life. However, due to the operations of Murphy’s law, the committees of experts having more numbers, weapons, and influence through prestige, became able to brutally attack these participants in fantasy, the normal result of Murphy’s law, and even other totally innocent but just assumed to be so.
The irony is that little of this has anything to do with either the conscious realities of Christianity or magick but just the normal degenerative results of Murphy’s Law.
Hi m r n
Have you noticed that Biblical Inerrancy is gradually being replaced by PBS Inerrancy.
The reason most people will dismiss Wicca is because its not actualy that old of a religion. The book of shadows was written in the 1950’s.
Most of the ideas of wicca go back to celtic belief, and the order of the Druid, which is one of the oldest known religions in Europe. (apart from older clans).
These type of religions are considered “pagan” because of the use of many Gods, and was more of a philosophy than a religion, much like Budhism.
Now the Celts did not practise a written tradition as we do today, instead it was a oral tradition, which the bards would pass on, and they did until ceaser spread Christianity (which conviniantly opposed everything the celts believed, and replaced their holidays with “christian” ones. Things like Christmas and Halloween, where around before christianity, instead they had different names.)
Would also like to say just because its not old doesn’t mean its less valid, Xtianity had to be new at one point, as did Islam etc.
The difference being, when Islam and Christianity were new, they claimed to be new. When Wicca was new, it claimed to be ancient. That's what makes it invalid- it's based on a lie.
The ideas of Wicca don't go back to celtic ideas [i]other than[/i] fashion. As you pointed out, the celts and druids didn't write anything down. All we know about them is what little bit the Romans wrote down, and what little bit we've been able to figure out from digging up their bones and such. The founders of Wicca, so far as I've heard, were not experts in archaeology or history. Wicca relates to druidry in a very vague sense- they both kinda have something to do with nature- and departs from it radically in anything actually substantial, like human sacrifice.
The main thing that wicca shares with old Paganism is that they were both picked on by bigger, more popular religions. That persecution complex is the only thing that keeps wicca alive or interesting (so don't forget, I'm doing you a favor).
excuse me my girl irespects the wicca ways so anyone who goes aginst her
has to find another way around my timecube beliefs and im a hard target to change i even fear christaians makes me feel so good.
I agree and disagree… to a certain extent all religions are based upon a tenable lie. The lie of christianity is the rebirth (which had been told many times before christ.)
The lie of Islam is the same as the lie of mormonism. That a single man controls the communication to god. This of course is also the lie of the catholic church.
But getting back to where you started, Wicca is certainly based upon a much more BLATANT lie. It’s been around for 50 years tops. I feel the same way about freemasonry, as they claim to practice the temple ceremonies of solomon.
Eh, it would be hard to argue with you, scythekain. Certainly if all religions are false, they are all based on a lie at some point. I think though, in the case of Christianity, it’s much more difficult to pinpoint who started lying and why- if anyone at all. So far as I can tell, even the earliest Christians believed what they were preaching, and took it seriously enough to be martyred for it. Wicca has martyrs too: angsty teens who get weird looks for wearing pentagrams, and complain about how society hates them in their livejournals.
In the case of Islam, yes I agree with your comparison to Mormonism. Gardener would have done will to have claimed his wicca teachings were a direct revelation from the Godness, and not tried to make up a BS history behind the whole thing.
Thirdly, I think Wicca has more of an ongoing lie than either of the other two faiths. Assuming all religions are false, it’s still true that the key lies of Islam and Christianity are arguable- the existence of Jesus, the reliability of the New Testament or Koran, and so on. In other words, we can excuse the ‘people at the top’ in those faiths as perhaps being misguided- they may just be believing a very old lie. With Wicca, the people ‘at the top’ (who are the book publishers making money, since there’s no real organization) perpetuate lies that, if they have any education on the subject of their writings, they must know to be false. Simply put, Billy Graham is probably not intentionally lying to anyone. Raven Silverwolf (or is it Silver Ravenwolf?) almost certainly is.
I see your point, though mormonism did try to make up a BS history with the “nephite legacy” (jews that came to america).
BUT, I think you still dole out higher standards of reason for other religions, than your own. Like for instance, you can see that wicca and scientology are clearly bunk by applying force of reason and logic, but do you apply the same logic when examining the issues of christianity?
You can see the cracks in the wall of Islam. The toppling towers of mormonism. Are you ignoring the facts?
I think in alot of cases, the people (“prophets”) who dole out BS, either:
A) believe what they are doling out. (mohamed?, Heaven’s gate leader, Raeliens, etc.)
B) are trying to intentionally deceive people. (Joseph Smith, mohamed?, satanist leadership, freemason leadership, wiccan leader, hubbard)
I think the early founders of christian faith fell under category A. I don’t think the christian leadership (well MOST of them anyways.) intentionally tries to decieve.
As we’ve seen with “reason and logic” most of the modern leaders who fall under category A are insane. Look at the heaven’s gate leader. Total certifiable nutcase.
There’s not enough evidence to toss mohamed into one category or the other, so I put him in A and B.
I think that is a risk, and that criticizing someone else's stuff is easier than criticizing your own. At the same time, I think you've asked an impossible question here. If I'm a Christian and you aren't, how can I convince you that I hold my Christianity to high rational standards, without convincing you to [i]be a Christian [/i] at the same time? As long as we disagree about the truth of the religion, you will always think that I must be overlooking some argument, evidence, or lack of the same. What else could you think? Simply put, if I think A and B are false, then my perspective on believers in A (but not B) or B (but not A) is likely to be that they are doing something wrong in believing one but not the other. That's a standard skeptical position- that holding a firm position always comes about as a result of bias, and that the true unbiased stance is not to believe anything at all.
but not believing anything is believing SOMETHING. (I didn’t say I lack beliefs.)
definately.
well here’s an interesting situation. From my perspective, it’s impossible to look at christianity with rationality and maintain the perspective that it’s possible christ was the savior. From your perspective looking at with rationality IS possible, and not only is it possible, but you are doing so.
who’s got the relative high ground?
it becomes worse when you try to argue your case against other belief structures similiar to your own. They to can say "I’ve examined Islam/Wicca/Mormonism/Catholicism/(insert religion/atheism/satanism here) and can find nothing wrong with it.
I.E. When you go faith vs faith, you’ll have a relativistically lower position than faith vs rationality. Not that the opposing side will listen to your argument even then.
(not a statement against you at all, you’re a great debater.)
I think a true unbiased stance comes from accepting that even your faith and belief is relativistic. Like I said before… A firm belief in nothing is still a belief. I don’t believe in nothing, I’m not a nihilist.
Yes, I pretty much agree with all this. That being said, what becomes of the claim that people criticize their own beliefs then than they criticize others? It’s just plain obvious in one sense- if I were more critical of Christianity than of Islam, one would hope that I would be a Muslim, since this would mean that I find Islam more consistant and rational. What I mean is, it’s totally expected that I am less critical of my own positions- that’s why they are my positions. Or do you mean something more than this?
I think you're right that this is the way to have an unbiased stance, so far as that goes. But why have an unbiased stance? Surely, it's important for debate moderators and perhaps judges, but for philosophers? Let me put it this way.
I'm going to assume that the goal of critical thinking is to accumlate true beliefs, and eliminate falsehoods. We can argue that if you want, but I'd say that's pretty much universally accepted.
Suppose religion X was in fact, the uniquely truthful religion, and all others were wrong insofar as they deviated from X. In such a case, wouldn't being a strident, bias believer in X be ideal over this acceptance of relativism you're talking about?
But, you say, the situation I describe above is not the case, and even if it were, nobody could know it was the case. But I would be quick point out that that's just your [i]perspective [/i]on the matter. Many if not most religious believers take the situation above (that one particular religion is right to the exclusion of all others) to be [i]exactly[/i] the case.
Where I'm going is this: If someone is convinced that a certain religion is uniquely true, then striving for an unbiased look at that faith is [i]not[/i] a consistant goal with what they believe. And if you grant me that, then it seems to me the only conclusion is that religious claims have to be evaluated point by point for credibility. In other words, the notion of bias becomes lost- if a person is convinced Islam is true, they have no reason to be unbiased about it. To give them a reason to be unbiased, you must first convince them that Islam is false (or at least, unbelievable) and then you've given them a reason to be biased [i]against[/i] it.
well if you were bent on choosing one yes… but you could be more critical of it (christianity) and the things your critical about for islam are “worse”.
You could also TRY to be equally critical of your own belief could you not?
and let’s say you do, suddenly start criticizing christianity more than Islam. don’t you think it’s better to know that you’d make a better muslim than christian? (or vice versa).
and than you have my postition of agnostic, where I can justify some belief in god, and be more critical of Islam than christianity because honestly it appears that the moderate muslims are not completely ingenous about equality towards woman, and disavowing the martyr.
well, yea it’s only natural to be less critical of your position, but before accepting any position you should critically examine it shouldn’t you? If I came up to you and said “I’m the son of god” you’d want some proof right?
maybe a miracle or two, walking on water, etc.
the same criticisms we apply to other portions of our life should be applied to our beliefs. When you first heard about evolution did you accept it outright?
isn’t the best way to be a critical thinker to be critical of all thinking? (kidding slightly)
It’s also important to not hold on to your ideas so tightly that when something better comes along that better explains the mystery, you deny it due to dogmatic belief. You’ll openly rationalize the new belief, and justify your own in the process. Look at it like a scale. Weigh the negative s against each other and the positives against each other.
Rationalize each on it’s own merit. Is it possible that the wicca author really is in touch with nature? Is it possible Mohamed was a prophet and talked to god? Is it possible Jesus was the christ?
then the negative, How do I know that this wiccan author isn’t lying?
How do I know mohamed wasn’t insane? (like we brand god speakers today.)
How do I know Jesus christ isn’t another fictional tale of a god man?
(these are examples from my POV.)
Now, you could say this seems awful, “willy nilly” accepting any old belief that comes along. The opposite is true. You only accept beliefs that you can justify. Faith doesn’t have to be unjustified.
falsehoods, is a dirty word, no matter how true it is. Let’s use “unjustified”. We aim through rationalization to collect true beliefs and bely the unjustified beliefs.
yeah I’m just arguing semantics at this point.
Y (protestant, evangelical christians) have deviated from X (catholicism), Y thinks that they are getting closer to the message of christ, while X thinks Y is deviated. From my “rationalized” (or relativism if you prefer) point of view, both X and Y need to take a step back and realize the relativity of their view point. the normal X and Y person is going to say that both have deviated from christs message. At that point your just throwing words, backed up by unjustified beliefs. Neither side has reason backing up their statement that the other is deviated.
JUST belief. Imagine if you suddenly believed that the world was going to end in a week. (either from meteor, christ, mohamed, planet x, etc.) Imagine what that would do to your POV and the way you behaved. This is the power of belief, and why it’s important to keep rational thought intertwined with belief.
this is exactly the point I’m arguing. It’s only perspective that makes a belief right or wrong, not rational thought.
which is why Bush’s war on “terror” will fail. We are fighting a particular brand of terrorism called Islamic Terrorism. That is what we need to deal with, and we can’t go in there saying “god is on our side” (which bush has done). We can’t go in there thinking our belief is somehow better than there belief.
then they shouldn’t believe that. Would you believe that you can evade gravity? of course not because you can rationalize that gravity will affect you should you jump off a building.
what convinced them? brainwashing like in the post by WOW? (did you read that?) or did they base it on rational logical questions about the faith?
as long as they are not willing to critically examine their faith you’ll never convince them of that. Especially from the point of view of the christian or mormon. All you’ve got backing up your statement is “my religion/belief is true and yours is not.”
I could try. But I'd have no way to demonstrate to anyone else that I was really doing it. When you say critical, do you mean looking for faults, or finding them? If you mean the first, then sure, I try to be as critical of Christianity as any other faith. If you mean the second, then if I were as critical of Christianity as I were Wicca, I wouldn't be a Christian anymore. My problem is, how can I demonstrate that I've accomplished the former without arriving at the latter? In the eyes of a skeptic, I cannot.
For me, there’s no such thing as “Before I accepted Christianity”. What do I do? Sure, I can critically examine things now, but as long as I remain a Christian, I will forever be suspect of not trying hard enough.
Of course I did. I was like, 8 and having it explained to me by a science teacher.
At first glance, it would appear you are right. However, suppose I am presented with an atheistic or anti-Christian argument which I have never heard before, which seems convincing, and to which I have no ready reply. What is the proper course? To immediately disavow the things I have believed for decades, and start trying to convince myself to be an atheist? Or, to maintain my belief while I do research trying to find a solution to the argument that has been presented to me? The second seems the wiser course, but it's definitely biased.
Now, I'm not saying your wrong. Of course a philosopher has to be ready to change his mind if the evidence seems to compell him this way or that way. I'm just trying to say that a Muslim philosopher who argues for Islam and and develops his arguments from a Islamic framework isn't necessarily doing anything wrong, and is not necessarily guilty of a crippling bias.
Sure, but in the example I gave, you would be wrong. X really is the original message, and Y really is deviated from the truth. In this case, for believers of X to turn a skeptical, doubting eye to X, they would be moving in the wrong direction. Well, on the assumption that firmly holding a true belief is a more correct position than weakly holding it or being ambivalent towards it. Simply put, if X is true, then
“X is true” is a mor desireable position than
“Well, X might be true, but I’m not really sure”
according to the rule we agreed on, right?
Well, that’s outside the example. X may have their arguments, Y may have theirs. X’s arguments may be the most sound, and believers of Y may just be (by definition) people who can’t see that soundness.
I don’t follow you at all…the specific things a person believes or why is really irrelevant at this point.
It doesn’t matter, it’s just a general principal. Let me outline exactly what I’m claiming, and see if we agree.
If I do my level best to be a rational, sensible, upright person, and I become convinced that Islam is true, then I have no [i]de facto [/i] reason to be doubtful or skeptical of Islam, unless and until specific arguments or evidence against Islam are presented to me.
We agree that a person has a duty to believe in proportion to the evidence, as you basically said above. To me, it seems that you are adding a second duty, a duty to accept ‘relativism’. This I deny. An embrace of relativism may or may not come about as a result of following the first duty, but it is nota requirement of it’s own.
ah back to relativism. remember that 16 page monster on that we did last year? I’m not a proponent of relativism as much as I am for realizing that your viewpoint on faith is based in relativism as their is no proof for it. (nothing tangible at least.)
I’d vouch more for rationalism with a need to reinvent the spiritual wheel. or maybe at most. Tune it, true it. and remove the morally abhorent statements from them.
Through the usual methods- rational argument, appeals to the evidence, demonstration of how the tenets of my faith leads to 'right living' more easily than their own. People are convinced to move from one faith to another all the time.
Again, with regards to bias, all I have to say on the matter is that I've yet to see a way that [i]bias[/i] towards a religion or ideology can be seperated from [i]belief[/i] in that religion or ideology, from the perspective of the skeptic. If there is no seperation, then I would submit that accusations of bias are really irrelevant, and that people should get on with discussing the substance of each other's beliefs.
I can’t imagine intending to say something like that. I consider myself to have tried to break Christianity very hard, especially in my earlier years.
The vague comparisons of American Christians to Shariah-law Muslims seemed a little inflammatory to me, and I don’t really have a response in the context of what we’re talking about.
I would think it was obvious- because the Muslim who calls himself a philosopher presumably doesn't [i]take himself [/i] to be 'espousing the programmed line'. He finds Islam to be the proper conclusion of his rational inquiries to date, and so he espouses them for the same reason you espouse these ideas here.
Your comparions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam- if they have any relevance to what we’re talking about, I don’t see it. I’m sorry. If you aren’t willing to let religion X be true for the sake of argument , then it will be very hard to convey these ideas I have.
For the sake of argument, yes they can. For the sake of argument, followers of Y believe they have solid arguments for their position, but in fact they are mistaken.
Damnit. Alright. “Religion X” again.
If I do my level best to be a rational, sensible, upright person, and I become convinced that X is true, and that X has substantial evidence backing it, then the proper thing for me to do is to believe X, and to believe it quite strongly. I am not obligated to be skeptical towards X unless and until I come across some argument or evidence that actually throws X into doubt.
:unamused: I'm doing my best, scythekain. Cut me some slack and realize that I'm not trying to advocate or criticize any religion at this point. I disagree with the above, because if I, or anyone else, believed that their position on faith was a groundless as you seem to think they are, they instantly wouldn't have that position anymore. They would be skeptics instead. A person who believes in X, while at the same time believing there is no good reason to believe X, is a crazy person. I'm not even sure such a beast can exist. One more time. :slight_smile: :
A Muslim does not think there is no proof for Islam. He does not think ‘there is no rational reason’ for believing the tenets of Islam. To convince him of such is identical to convincing him not to be Muslim anymore. If you set out trying to convince Muslims that ‘their position is based on relativism’, and I set out trying to convince Muslims that their position is false, you will find that we amount to doing the same exact thing- shooting holes in their claims.
This creature you are trying to create, the religious person who knows there is no good reason to believe their own religion, does not and cannot exist. Even if it could, it would be in a much more pathetic state than the strident believer, for it would have all the evidence and arguments necessary for agnosticism, but it’s beliefs would be hopelessly mired in a state not in agreement with that evidence.
One final thing deserves mention here. You will find people who claim to be Christian, or claim to be Buddist, and who openly admit that there is no rational reason to believe as they do. If you press them, however, you will find that they are using radically different definitions of the words ‘rational’ or ‘believe’. In the end, they do believe something in the usual sense, and they do think they have good reasons for believing whatever that thing is.
I may or may not respond, as I feel I can do no more than repeat myself at this point. Certainly I’ve nothing more to say on the original subject of the thread.
makes me feel so good.