Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Pagan Topic => Topic started by: Bubbles on November 08, 2015, 03:54:56 PM
-
http://www.tairis.co.uk
I thought this was an interesting site.
Wondered what others thought.
He describes himself as a "Gaelic Polytheist"
-
http://www.tairis.co.uk
I thought this was an interesting site.
Wondered what others thought.
He describes himself as a "Gaelic Polytheist"
For Gaelic you can read Celtic.
Other than that it is a fairly large site and it will take some time for me to read through it all. I will however do so over the next couple of days (?) when I can get a break from other things I have promised to do for various friends.
-
Yeah I thought that. It's like the site wants to distance itself from the sentimental Enya-esque fashion for all things Celtic that arises from some quarters.
-
Yeah I thought that. It's like the site wants to distance itself from the sentimental Enya-esque fashion for all things Celtic that arises from some quarters.
It does say that a "Gaelic Polytheist" is an abbreviation of "Gaelic Reconstructionist Polytheist" as the latter is a mouthful.
-
So presumably he's cutting himself off from all things Welsh and Cornish. :-\
-
So presumably he's cutting himself off from all things Welsh and Cornish. :-\
Actually he is rather inclusive in his description.
He describes "Celtic" as beiung an umbrella under which shelter, among other things, groups of languages and peoples grouped within those languages -
Under "Historical" linguistic groups he includes
Gaulish
Brythonic
Piuctish
Cumbric
Galatian
Lepontic
Celt-Iberian
and
Noric
Under "Modern" linguistis groups
Irish
Scots Gealic (otherwise known, he says, just as Gaelic)
Manx
Welsh
Cornish
and
Breton.
-
Sorry, Owlswing, I don't have the time to look at the site. :-[
So do you think he's just distancing himself from fluffy Celtic hug-a-harp stuff?
-
Sorry, Owlswing, I don't have the time to look at the site. :-[
So do you think he's just distancing himself from fluffy Celtic hug-a-harp stuff?
I've only read the first page myself! I'm posting here during my tea-break from creating a listing of Yu-Gi-Oh cards - 11,000 of them!
-
That's dedication! :D
-
That's dedication! :D
No, it is terminal and incurable insanity!
Hey ho! get earns me afew bob that helps the pension!
-
That's dedication! :D
No, it is terminal and incurable insanity!
Hey ho! get earns me afew bob that helps the pension!
Glad to see it confirmed!
-
Rose
Right - the writer is what is called a "reconstructionist" pagan.
Most pagans go with the knowledge that we "know" very little of what was actually said and/or done in the rituals of the pre-christian pagans and do what feels right to them, taking into account (sometimes) what others do or say.
Reconstructionists go rather further. They will dig throiugh every last sentence written about the pre-christian era by anyone and everyone from any and every academic discipline.
They are literally trying to "reconstruct" the ancient beliefs and rituals.
Needless to say, there can be, but not necessarily are, frictions between the "reconstructionist pagans" and the "neo-pagans".
My personal take on this is the oft-quoted "go with what you, the individual, feels to be right". Because there tend to be traffic upgrades from neo to reconstructionist, the latter tend to consider themselves ro be the "real" pagans and look down on the rest of us.
Let them!
I, for one, find them to be far more interested in the what, why, and how of it all and the connection to the deity which can be effected by either discipline, neo or reconstructionist, becomes lost in the search for exactly how it was done in the past instead of concentrating on the fact that we are in the now not in the then. As far as I am concerned the deities know what I am doing and what I am saying and why I am saying it without it having to be letter perfect as it was done two or more thousand years ago - we get enough of that from people like Hope and BA and Sassy who forget that things have changed in the world over the last two thousand years.
I will, eventually, when time and other things allow, read the entire article but the essence of it is encapsulated by the above.
I hope that this is of use to you. If your reading of the article gives rise to any questions please post them and I will do my best to answer them. I and Rhi (and the resting Horsethorn) are the only pagans posting here so you can safely ignore any supposedly erudite comments from others seeking to score points against us pagans.
-
The big problem for reconstructionists is that academic opinion changes all the time as the body of knowledge grows. It seems like a pretty futile excericise to me.
-
The big problem for reconstructionists is that academic opinion changes all the time as the body of knowledge grows. It seems like a pretty futile excericise to me.
Ah yes, but, in their view, each new piece of knowledge takes them closer to their goal of the "real" Celtic Paganism and thus end their frustration at not having done things "right" before due to a lack of knowledge.
-
Which is fine, except that means they've just been doing it wrong. Which is a bit weird considering their claim to be authentic.
-
Which is fine, except that means they've just been doing it wrong. Which is a bit weird considering their claim to be authentic.
See, here we have the conundrum.
The explanation seems to be better incomplete than not at all.
See, most pagans are open to the possibility that their deities might not exist but are wiilling have faith that they do, so they work with that. Reconstructionists are rather like christians like BA, Hope and Sassy - they are not willing to admit that anyone else could be 'righter' than they are.
-
Incomplete is fine, so long as that's acknowledged and no superiority attached to that.
My path is so loose I don't know if it even has a name, but it doesn't feel any the less authentic for that.
-
Incomplete is fine, so long as that's acknowledged and no superiority attached to that.
My path is so loose I don't know if it even has a name, but it doesn't feel any the less authentic for that.
Precisely - you and I are complete pains in the butt , sorry, anathema, to the die-hard reconstructionist.
-
It wasn't until recently that Id heard some reconstructionists go in for animal sacrifice. Never come across it personally, but still... >:(
-
It wasn't until recently that Id heard some reconstructionists go in for animal sacrifice. Never come across it personally, but still... >:(
They do, so I'm told, keep it quiet.
The author states, in setion headed "But what about . . . you know . . . the bad stuff?:
Human sacrifice, s the most obvious example, is not a part of Celtic Reconstruction, and for a lot of people neither is animal sacrifice (though some do - generally those who homestead and raise anf kill their own livestock anyway).
A lot? Not 'many', not the 'majority'. Hmm!
-
that to me is where practice tips over into something else - I hate to say 'play acting' but almost - it's like they are so slavishly following a supposed authentic path but haven't stopped to think about what it is they are actually doing.
-
Which is fine, except that means they've just been doing it wrong. Which is a bit weird considering their claim to be authentic.
See, here we have the conundrum.
The explanation seems to be better incomplete than not at all.
See, most pagans are open to the possibility that their deities might not exist but are wiilling have faith that they do, so they work with that. Reconstructionists are rather like christians like BA, Hope and Sassy - they are not willing to admit that anyone else could be 'righter' than they are.
I wonder if it's an aspect of paganism to mis-represent others? Or is it just your personal weakness?
-
I wonder if it's an aspect of paganism to mis-represent others?
You're not a pagan yet routinely misrepresent others, so the answer is no.
-
I wonder if it's an aspect of paganism to mis-represent others?
You're not a pagan yet routinely misrepresent others, so the answer is no.
How is it that you never seem to criticise, or even comment on paganism, some of whose adherents practise very strange things, and have very strange beliefs? It would seem it is Christianity about which you have a hang-up. There are people who help those with such "afflictions."
-
How is it that you never seem to criticise, or even comment on paganism, some of whose adherents practise very strange things, and have very strange beliefs? It would seem it is Christianity about which you have a hang-up. There are people who help those with such "afflictions."
Various reasons.
Paganism.is a massive subject - the one word doesn't cover every variety, shade and nuance of pagan belief and practice. I've read a fair number of books on different aspects of paganism and, far too rarely, have chatted to a few pagans in person but it's barely even a scratch on the scratch of the surface. I don't know about the "very strange things" to which you refer but whatever they may be, their practitioners seem to pursue their path and go their own way without making any song and dance about it. They don't seem to care what other people do and believe and expect the same from others. They don't seem to want their religion tied up with the state. They don't seem to want governmental representation as of right. They don't seem to want to dictate how other people live their lives, such as who can marry whom and who can watch this or that and what have you. They seem to get on with their own thing privately, without demanding attention or deference from anybody else. Doubtless pagans are as pleased as anyone else if somebody decides to adopt a pagan path but in my experience at least they don't proselytise - they don't obtrude themselves on you wanting to tell you about their beliefs; if you want to find out it's easy enough but you have to make the running; nobody comes knocking on your door when you're eating your lunch. Not a theist (neither are scads of pagans, come to that), I'm sympathetic to the concept of a religion which takes as its basis the real and the true - nature - about which I said more in a post or two on the 'Seasons' thread.
That's why, amongst other reasons.
-
How is it that you never seem to criticise, or even comment on paganism, some of whose adherents practise very strange things, and have very strange beliefs? It would seem it is Christianity about which you have a hang-up. There are people who help those with such "afflictions."
Various reasons.
Paganism.is a massive subject - the one word doesn't cover every variety, shade and nuance of pagan belief and practice. I've read a fair number of books on different aspects of paganism and, far too rarely, have chatted to a few pagans in person but it's barely even a scratch on the scratch of the surface. I don't know about the "very strange things" to which you refer but whatever they may be, their practitioners seem to pursue their path and go their own way without making any song and dance about it. They don't seem to care what other people do and believe and expect the same from others. They don't seem to want their religion tied up with the state. They don't seem to want governmental representation as of right. They don't seem to want to dictate how other people live their lives, such as who can marry whom and who can watch this or that and what have you. They seem to get on with their own thing privately, without demanding attention or deference from anybody else. Not a theist (neither are scads of pagans, come to that), I'm sympathetic to the concept of a religion which takes as its basis the real and the true - nature - about which I said more in a post on the 'Seasons' thread.
That's why, amongst other reasons.
You do write the most "see-through" twaddle. Anyone who believes that sanctimonious tosh is short of a marble or two.
-
I hope it's see-through - I strive for clarity.
To be sanctimonious is to make a show of hypocritical because pretended holiness or piety - definitely not my scene.
I've answered your question to the best of my ability; if you can't understand or don't like the answer, that's not my problem.
-
that to me is where practice tips over into something else - I hate to say 'play acting' but almost - it's like they are so slavishly following a supposed authentic path but haven't stopped to think about what it is they are actually doing.
This is why there can be friction between the neo's and the Recons.
-
How is it that you never seem to criticise, or even comment on paganism, some of whose adherents practise very strange things, and have very strange beliefs? It would seem it is Christianity about which you have a hang-up. There are people who help those with such "afflictions."
Various reasons.
Paganism.is a massive subject - the one word doesn't cover every variety, shade and nuance of pagan belief and practice. I've read a fair number of books on different aspects of paganism and, far too rarely, have chatted to a few pagans in person but it's barely even a scratch on the scratch of the surface. I don't know about the "very strange things" to which you refer but whatever they may be, their practitioners seem to pursue their path and go their own way without making any song and dance about it. They don't seem to care what other people do and believe and expect the same from others. They don't seem to want their religion tied up with the state. They don't seem to want governmental representation as of right. They don't seem to want to dictate how other people live their lives, such as who can marry whom and who can watch this or that and what have you. They seem to get on with their own thing privately, without demanding attention or deference from anybody else. Doubtless pagans are as pleased as anyone else if somebody decides to adopt a pagan path but in my experience at least they don't proselytise - they don't obtrude themselves on you wanting to tell you about their beliefs; if you want to find out it's easy enough but you have to make the running; nobody comes knocking on your door when you're eating your lunch. Not a theist (neither are scads of pagans, come to that), I'm sympathetic to the concept of a religion which takes as its basis the real and the true - nature - about which I said more in a post or two on the 'Seasons' thread.
That's why, amongst other reasons.
Shaker
It is nice to see a non-pagan who has at least some understanding of our beliefs amd belief paths.
I hope that you also understand just how personal a belief path it is.
You are free to ask any questions you wish of either Rhi or myself. I cannot answer for Rhi, but I can asure you that I will answer you as fully as I possibly can without wandering into the realm of the oath-bound.
If I do not have an answer I will always try to direct you to someone or somewhere that might help you.
-
Very sincerely appreciated, O :)
-
How is it that you never seem to criticise, or even comment on paganism, some of whose adherents practise very strange things, and have very strange beliefs? It would seem it is Christianity about which you have a hang-up. There are people who help those with such "afflictions."
Various reasons.
Paganism.is a massive subject - the one word doesn't cover every variety, shade and nuance of pagan belief and practice. I've read a fair number of books on different aspects of paganism and, far too rarely, have chatted to a few pagans in person but it's barely even a scratch on the scratch of the surface. I don't know about the "very strange things" to which you refer but whatever they may be, their practitioners seem to pursue their path and go their own way without making any song and dance about it. They don't seem to care what other people do and believe and expect the same from others. They don't seem to want their religion tied up with the state. They don't seem to want governmental representation as of right. They don't seem to want to dictate how other people live their lives, such as who can marry whom and who can watch this or that and what have you. They seem to get on with their own thing privately, without demanding attention or deference from anybody else. Not a theist (neither are scads of pagans, come to that), I'm sympathetic to the concept of a religion which takes as its basis the real and the true - nature - about which I said more in a post on the 'Seasons' thread.
That's why, amongst other reasons.
You do write the most "see-through" twaddle. Anyone who believes that sanctimonious tosh is short of a marble or two.
If you only had the faintest clue how bone-crushingly wrong that is...
-
How is it that you never seem to criticise, or even comment on paganism, some of whose adherents practise very strange things, and have very strange beliefs? It would seem it is Christianity about which you have a hang-up. There are people who help those with such "afflictions."
Various reasons.
Paganism.is a massive subject - the one word doesn't cover every variety, shade and nuance of pagan belief and practice. I've read a fair number of books on different aspects of paganism and, far too rarely, have chatted to a few pagans in person but it's barely even a scratch on the scratch of the surface. I don't know about the "very strange things" to which you refer but whatever they may be, their practitioners seem to pursue their path and go their own way without making any song and dance about it. They don't seem to care what other people do and believe and expect the same from others. They don't seem to want their religion tied up with the state. They don't seem to want governmental representation as of right. They don't seem to want to dictate how other people live their lives, such as who can marry whom and who can watch this or that and what have you. They seem to get on with their own thing privately, without demanding attention or deference from anybody else. Not a theist (neither are scads of pagans, come to that), I'm sympathetic to the concept of a religion which takes as its basis the real and the true - nature - about which I said more in a post on the 'Seasons' thread.
That's why, amongst other reasons.
You do write the most "see-through" twaddle. Anyone who believes that sanctimonious tosh is short of a marble or two.
If you only had the faintest clue how bone-crushingly wrong that is...
How come, then, if your beliefs are so obviously the right path, so few people are adherents? Some 50,000 out of a population of 65,000,000?
-
There are only two reasons why I share anything of my path with anybody.
One, because I know from my own journey how hard it is to find good, clear advice.
Two, because of those moments when you share something and someone else comes along and says, yeah, I get that, that means something to me too. Precious beyond price.
-
I wasn't referring to the 'rightness' of my path, BA.
Btw autocorrect keeps trying to change your name to 'baa'.
-
I wasn't referring to the 'rightness' of my path, BA.
Btw autocorrect keeps trying to change your name to 'baa'.
I was referring to paganism, generally, and its adherents, not you personally.
-
And I was referring to the clarity and understanding in Shaker's writing. To refer to it as 'twaddle' is just plain wrong even if you don't agree with the content.
-
And I was referring to the clarity and understanding in Shaker's writing. To refer to it as 'twaddle' is just plain wrong even if you don't agree with the content.
It was sycophantic and merely an attempt to ingratiate himself with the likes of you, and attempt to make himself look reasonable in his anti-theist stance. I'm surprised you didn't appreciate that. I know Shaker from many moons back, and he doesn't pull the wool over my eyes.
-
It was sycophantic and merely an attempt to ingratiate himself with the likes of you
In what the late Eric Morley used to call reserve [sic] order, I don't think I'm known for trying to ingratiate myself with anyone, and there was nothing sycophantic about it. It was my (poor) attempt to explain what I know of paganism (too little) and how I've come to know it, and something of what I think of it.
-
It was sycophantic and merely an attempt to ingratiate himself with the likes of you
In what the late Eric Morley used to call reserve [sic] order, I don't think I'm known for trying to ingratiate myself with anyone, and there was nothing sycophantic about it. It was my (poor) attempt to explain what I know of paganism (too little) and how I've come to know it, and something of what I think of it.
A bit of honesty that is appreciated. Honesty instead of religious bullshit by the ton!
-
It was sycophantic and merely an attempt to ingratiate himself with the likes of you
In what the late Eric Morley used to call reserve [sic] order, I don't think I'm known for trying to ingratiate myself with anyone, and there was nothing sycophantic about it. It was my (poor) attempt to explain what I know of paganism (too little) and how I've come to know it, and something of what I think of it.
A bit of honesty that is appreciated. Honesty instead of religious bullshit by the ton!
Shaker is by far the most vitriolic and abusive anti-Christian poster I have encountered, anywhere. If you find him in any way commendable, then I guess it says a lot about your judgement.
-
And I was referring to the clarity and understanding in Shaker's writing. To refer to it as 'twaddle' is just plain wrong even if you don't agree with the content.
It was sycophantic and merely an attempt to ingratiate himself with the likes of you, and attempt to make himself look reasonable in his anti-theist stance. I'm surprised you didn't appreciate that. I know Shaker from many moons back, and he doesn't pull the wool over my eyes.
Did you really mean that last bit?
<bites lip>
-
And I was referring to the clarity and understanding in Shaker's writing. To refer to it as 'twaddle' is just plain wrong even if you don't agree with the content.
It was sycophantic and merely an attempt to ingratiate himself with the likes of you, and attempt to make himself look reasonable in his anti-theist stance. I'm surprised you didn't appreciate that. I know Shaker from many moons back, and he doesn't pull the wool over my eyes.
Did you really mean that last bit?
<bites lip>
I did, if you understand what I am saying .
-
How come, then, if your beliefs are so obviously the right path, so few people are adherents? Some 50,000 out of a population of 65,000,000?
My impression of pagans is that they tend to be very much more comfortable and at home with the concept of subjective truth - "Right for me, but not necessarily you" - than acolytes of monotheistic faiths. Owlswing states this openly on a fairly regular basis. Christianity and other monotheistic religions make putative truth claims which purport to be absolutely and universally true for everyone at all times in all places. Jesus said: I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the father except through me. There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. And so on. These are absolutist, dogmatic statements that leave no room for subjective interpretation.
Many pagans on the other hand - not all, but by far the great majority I've encountered in person and online - find this sort of thing (if they are honest) every bit as foolish and limited and narrow as I do, though they may put it more diplomatically than that. They don't seem to mind talking about subjective truth and personal/individual paths.
-
Shaker is by far the most vitriolic and abusive anti-Christian poster I have encountered, anywhere. If you find him in any way commendable, then I guess it says a lot about your judgement.
Flattered as I am, many of us know of old how intemperately, even downright histrionically you react to the merest hint of criticism of, challenge to and critique of your beliefs, so your bar for vitriol and abuse is calibrated vastly lower than it is for the overwhelming majority.
-
Shaker is by far the most vitriolic and abusive anti-Christian poster I have encountered, anywhere. If you find him in any way commendable, then I guess it says a lot about your judgement.
Flattered as I am, many of us know of old how intemperately, even downright histrionically you react to the merest hint of criticism of, challenge to and critique of your beliefs, so your bar for vitriol and abuse is calibrated vastly lower than it is for the overwhelming majority.
This from someone who has described Jesus as a "zombie on a stick."
-
Not original - I saw that on a T-shirt once :D
-
It was sycophantic and merely an attempt to ingratiate himself with the likes of you
In what the late Eric Morley used to call reserve [sic] order, I don't think I'm known for trying to ingratiate myself with anyone, and there was nothing sycophantic about it. It was my (poor) attempt to explain what I know of paganism (too little) and how I've come to know it, and something of what I think of it.
Let's be honest, I doubt very many of us have you down as a sycophant.
-
That's honest to a bloody fault :P
-
:D
-
That's honest to a bloody fault :P
It's taken a while for you to revert to swearing.
-
And very little time for you to start whining about it, as usual.
-
And very little time for you to start whining about it, as usual.
I'm not whining; I'm merely pointing out how disreputable your language is.
-
Only to you, Bashers.
-
Only to you, Bashers.
Really? Don't be so stupid. If such language is acceptable, why are we warned of it before certain tv programmes; why do we not hear it in Parliamentary discussion; why is it even apologised for by commentators when microphones pick up bad language on sports fields, etc, etc? It is not every one who resides in the gutters of language as you do - I did not miss your use of the "c" word the other day. You have no control and only a sparse vocabulary.
-
Really? Don't be so stupid. If such language is acceptable, why are we warned of it before certain tv programmes
I've yet to hear an announcement before any TV programme: "The following programme contains the word bloody."
Otherwise, TV channels still have to pander to the prudish, often elderly, nearly always with scant experience of a wide variety of different kinds of people in different social settings.
-
Really? Don't be so stupid. If such language is acceptable, why are we warned of it before certain tv programmes
I've yet to hear an announcement before any TV programme: "The following programme contains the word bloody."
Otherwise, TV channels still have to pander to the prudish, often elderly, nearly always with scant experience of a wide variety of different kinds of people in different social settings.
"Be warned, the following programme contains bad language," is quite common.
You ignore my other points, I note. It is not prudish to avoid foul language, it is common decency; and it is the elderly who are most likely to have had experience of different people in different social settings, so it is not pandering to them, or anyone, to avoid foul language; it is being decent and controlled
Only the unintelligent argue in favour of the right to use foul language as a matter of course, as you do and in particular with your most abusive use of the "c" word the other day, and that is because they, and you, don't appreciate what it is to have standards.
-
Really? Don't be so stupid. If such language is acceptable, why are we warned of it before certain tv programmes
I've yet to hear an announcement before any TV programme: "The following programme contains the word bloody."
Otherwise, TV channels still have to pander to the prudish, often elderly, nearly always with scant experience of a wide variety of different kinds of people in different social settings.
Shades of that prudish (elderly) old tart Mary Whitehouse - sitting watching documentaries on the tribes of Africa counting tits and cocks!
-
Really? Don't be so stupid. If such language is acceptable, why are we warned of it before certain tv programmes
I've yet to hear an announcement before any TV programme: "The following programme contains the word bloody."
Otherwise, TV channels still have to pander to the prudish, often elderly, nearly always with scant experience of a wide variety of different kinds of people in different social settings.
Shades of that prudish (elderly) old tart Mary Whitehouse - sitting watching documentaries on the tribes of Africa counting tits and cocks!
I don't remember that, but I expect you've got it on video, or something.
-
How come, then, if your beliefs are so obviously the right path, so few people are adherents? Some 50,000 out of a population of 65,000,000?
My impression of pagans is that they tend to be very much more comfortable and at home with the concept of subjective truth - "Right for me, but not necessarily you" - than acolytes of monotheistic faiths. Owlswing states this openly on a fairly regular basis. Christianity and other monotheistic religions make putative truth claims which purport to be absolutely and universally true for everyone at all times in all places. Jesus said: I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the father except through me. There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. And so on. These are absolutist, dogmatic statements that leave no room for subjective interpretation.
Many pagans on the other hand - not all, but by far the great majority I've encountered in person and online - find this sort of thing (if they are honest) every bit as foolish and limited and narrow as I do, though they may put it more diplomatically than that. They don't seem to mind talking about subjective truth and personal/individual paths.
The best that I can do is 'true for me for now'. I said somewhere recently that it's the land , the trees, the stars and sky that I can rely on, not myself.
-
How come, then, if your beliefs are so obviously the right path, so few people are adherents? Some 50,000 out of a population of 65,000,000?
My impression of pagans is that they tend to be very much more comfortable and at home with the concept of subjective truth - "Right for me, but not necessarily you" - than acolytes of monotheistic faiths. Owlswing states this openly on a fairly regular basis. Christianity and other monotheistic religions make putative truth claims which purport to be absolutely and universally true for everyone at all times in all places. Jesus said: I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the father except through me. There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. And so on. These are absolutist, dogmatic statements that leave no room for subjective interpretation.
Many pagans on the other hand - not all, but by far the great majority I've encountered in person and online - find this sort of thing (if they are honest) every bit as foolish and limited and narrow as I do, though they may put it more diplomatically than that. They don't seem to mind talking about subjective truth and personal/individual paths.
The best that I can do is 'true for me for now'. I said somewhere recently that it's the land , the trees, the stars and sky that I can rely on, not myself.
What do you mean by, "rely on"?
-
Depend on, BA.
-
Depend on, BA.
I'm interested. How do you rely on the stars, for example?
-
Because they are always there. I don't ask them for anything or read them, if that is what you are asking. They are just constant.
-
Because they are always there. I don't ask them for anything or read them, if that is what you are asking. They are just constant.
How does that help you? In any event, they are not constant, they just appear to be: they are irrevocably dying, as all things do, and frequently undergo dramatic change.
-
Because they are always there. I don't ask them for anything or read them, if that is what you are asking. They are just constant.
How does that help you? In any event, they are not constant, they just appear to be: they are irrevocably dying, as all things do, and frequently undergo dramatic change.
We know that they are not ultimately constant any more than are mountains; but on the scale of the individual human lifetime they are, also like mountains. If you draw emotional sustenance from or invest spiritual significance in the things of the natural world, they offer constancy.
-
Yes, that's it exactly - it's about the scale both of our lifetimes and our entire existence. I gain perspective from them because I find that myself and my concerns are very small.
-
Because they are always there. I don't ask them for anything or read them, if that is what you are asking. They are just constant.
How does that help you? In any event, they are not constant, they just appear to be: they are irrevocably dying, as all things do, and frequently undergo dramatic change.
We know that they are not ultimately constant any more than are mountains; but on the scale of the individual human lifetime they are, also like mountains. If you draw emotional sustenance from or invest spiritual significance in the things of the natural world, they offer constancy.
But surely, if you attribute to them a constancy that you know they do not in reality possess, you are deceiving yourself.
-
There are always stars visible from the earth and I anticipate that won't change during my lifetime. Collectively they are constant.
-
No, nobody's ascribing anything not actually possessed. Stars explode and mountains erode over vast timescales and we all know this, but as I said, on the scale of the individual human lifetime - in fact many, many, many, many, many, many human lifetimes - they are stable and constant.
-
There are always stars visible from the earth and I anticipate that won't change during my lifetime. Collectively they are constant.
You can get computer programs that can show you - backwards in history, forwards into the future - how the constellations have changed and will change over many hundreds of thousands or millions of years, but no human with at most a century of observation can see such changes.
-
There are always stars visible from the earth and I anticipate that won't change during my lifetime. Collectively they are constant.
You can get computer programs that can show you - backwards in history, forwards into the future - how the constellations have changed and will change over many hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
:)
For there to be self-deception I would have to be unaware of this.
-
There are always stars visible from the earth and I anticipate that won't change during my lifetime. Collectively they are constant.
You can get computer programs that can show you - backwards in history, forwards into the future - how the constellations have changed and will change over many hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
Indeed, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are not, in reality, constant; they may appear so, but we know it is not the case: Nothing in the Universe, in life, is constant
-
So Jesus isn't a constant presence in your life?
-
So Jesus isn't a constant presence in your life?
Yes He is, the only constant: but that is not a pagan belief is it? It is for me.
-
There are always stars visible from the earth and I anticipate that won't change during my lifetime. Collectively they are constant.
You can get computer programs that can show you - backwards in history, forwards into the future - how the constellations have changed and will change over many hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
Indeed, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are not, in reality, constant; they may appear so, but we know it is not the case: Nothing in the Universe, in life, is constant
Indeed and nobody is denying this or saying otherwise; but the pace of change is so grindingly slow to the individual observer that they are constant to all appearances.
A million years from now Orion won't look the same as it does now. This of interest to astronomers, but realistically, who else cares?
-
So Jesus isn't a constant presence in your life?
Yes He is, the only constant: but that is not a pagan belief is it? It is for me.
And yet I can see the stars.
-
There are always stars visible from the earth and I anticipate that won't change during my lifetime. Collectively they are constant.
You can get computer programs that can show you - backwards in history, forwards into the future - how the constellations have changed and will change over many hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
Indeed, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are not, in reality, constant; they may appear so, but we know it is not the case: Nothing in the Universe, in life, is constant
Indeed and nobody is denying this or saying otherwise; but the pace of change is so grindingly slow to the individual observer that they are constant to all appearances.
A million years from now Orion won't look the same as it does now. This of interest to astronomers, but realistically, who else cares?
To me the fact that even the awesome stars are eventually going to die, is not a source of strength,it simply reminds me that we face uncertainty and change, whatever it may be.
-
But change is the most basic facet of the universe?
-
But change is the most basic facet of the universe?
It is, that's my point.
-
Why does change have to be a bad thing?
-
Why does change have to be a bad thing?
To be fair it's something that bothers a lot of people - I think for some change represents uncertainty which in itself is based on a lack of or loss of control over circumstances, and for many that's a scary thing.
-
Why does change have to be a bad thing?
To be fair it's something that bothers a lot of people - I think gor some change represents uncertainty which in itself is based on a lack of or loss of control over circumstances, and for many that's a scary thing.
Yes, but that still doesn't mean it is a bad thing, just that it feels bad.
-
Why does change have to be a bad thing?
To be fair it's something that bothers a lot of people - I think gor some change represents uncertainty which in itself is based on a lack of or loss of control over circumstances, and for many that's a scary thing.
It's a fear of the unknown; though changes may not indeed be bad, but it's the fact that we cannot be sure.
-
Why does change have to be a bad thing?
The only argument is the speed of the change - the stars change over such a period as to be un-noticable oveer a human lifetime.
The christians call their god a constant - he is not - what he was, what he is, what his son was and what his son is, and what they both stand for is being changed year on year as the church finds that more and more people are rejecting the old proscriptions and values like tattoo's, like same-sex relationships, like homosexuality.
The values of christians have changed more in the last ten years than in the prevuous couple of hundred - in that time the stars have changed, to all intents and purposes, not at all.
-
No, but if you set yourself up against the most fundamental fact of the cosmos you're going to give yourself a hard time. I used to be that way until I had to accept that it can only be embraced.
-
No, but if you set yourself up against the most fundamental fact of the cosmos you're going to give yourself a hard time. I used to be that way until I had to accept that it can only be embraced.
There is only one greater constant - that you are not going to get out of this world alive.
-
No, but if you set yourself up against the most fundamental fact of the cosmos you're going to give yourself a hard time. I used to be that way until I had to accept that it can only be embraced.
Exactly. It's fighting with reality. And that's one fight you are sure to lose.
-
No, but if you set yourself up against the most fundamental fact of the cosmos you're going to give yourself a hard time. I used to be that way until I had to accept that it can only be embraced.
Exactly. It's fighting with reality. And that's one fight you are sure to lose.
Reality - a difficult concept if you are trying to promote christianity as a logical set of beliefs.
-
No, but if you set yourself up against the most fundamental fact of the cosmos you're going to give yourself a hard time. I used to be that way until I had to accept that it can only be embraced.
Exactly. It's fighting with reality. And that's one fight you are sure to lose.
Reality - a difficult concept if you are trying to promote christianity as a logical set of beliefs.
And how is belief in the constancy of the stars construed as a belief?
-
It's not a belief.
-
It's not a belief.
Then I'm not sure what it is to you.
-
No, probably not.
-
No, probably not.
He has demonstrated his inability to understand even the most basic principles of paganism all too often.
Those principles are based upon personal choice so he, whose religion is based upon having no choice, will never understnad paganism and there is no way that he will, in his eyes, demean himself by trying to learn what we are about.
-
No, probably not.
He has demonstrated his inability to understand even the most basic principles of paganism all too often.
Those principles are based upon personal choice so he, whose religion is based upon having no choice, will never understnad paganism and there is no way that he will, in his eyes, demean himself by trying to learn what we are about.
I wish you'd stop telling me what I do or don't think: as if you knew, or understood.
-
Not a theist (neither are scads of pagans, come to that), I'm sympathetic to the concept of a religion which takes as its basis the real and the true - nature - about which I said more in a post or two on the 'Seasons' thread.
Oh yeah, because it makes so much more sense paying homage to gods one doesn't even believe exist in any real sense.
-
In what way is your god 'real', ad-o?
-
http://www.tairis.co.uk
I thought this was an interesting site.
Wondered what others thought.
He describes himself as a "Gaelic Polytheist"
Rose,
Please forgive me but no patience to read such a long site at present.
Why not give us a brief summary of what you thought it is the person is trying to reveal to us in short form.
Thank you
-
http://www.tairis.co.uk
I thought this was an interesting site.
Wondered what others thought.
He describes himself as a "Gaelic Polytheist"
Rose,
Please forgive me but no patience to read such a long site at present.
Why not give us a brief summary of what you thought it is the person is trying to reveal to us in short form.
Thank you
Sassy, you are just too lazy.
Do what anyone else has to do when doing research - read the materials - when you were at college or Uni did you get someone else to do your research for you?
No, of course you didn't - so don't expect Rose or Rhiannon or me or anyone else to do it for you now - why not do what you always do - read your bible, quote-mine it, and tell everyone else that what they are saying is rubbish because of it!
-
In what way is your god 'real', ad-o?
I would say he is existance itself. He is.
-
And to a pagan - especially a pantheism such as myself - nature and deity are the same thing.
-
What does the statement 'he is existence itself' mean?
-
What does the statement 'he is existence itself' mean?
That nothing exists apart from God.
-
If God is existence that sounds like you are heading towards pantheism.
-
If God is existence that sounds like you are heading towards pantheism.
No. That would confuse the creator with the created thing.
-
What does the statement 'he is existence itself' mean?
That nothing exists apart from God.
This seems to be a very specific use of the words exists and existence, could you explain?
-
What does the statement 'he is existence itself' mean?
That nothing exists apart from God.
This seems to be a very specific use of the words exists and existence, could you explain?
God exists by himself and nothing else can exist except that God himself wills it to exist.
-
Not a theist (neither are scads of pagans, come to that), I'm sympathetic to the concept of a religion which takes as its basis the real and the true - nature - about which I said more in a post or two on the 'Seasons' thread.
Oh yeah, because it makes so much more sense paying homage to gods one doesn't even believe exist in any real sense.
Some pagans think gods exist, others don't. The point is, nature as a focus of spiritual practice definitely does.
-
What does the statement 'he is existence itself' mean?
Not very much.
-
Not a theist (neither are scads of pagans, come to that), I'm sympathetic to the concept of a religion which takes as its basis the real and the true - nature - about which I said more in a post or two on the 'Seasons' thread.
Oh yeah, because it makes so much more sense paying homage to gods one doesn't even believe exist in any real sense.
Some pagans think gods exist, others don't. The point is, nature as a focus of spiritual practice definitely does.
Yes.
-
What does the statement 'he is existence itself' mean?
That nothing exists apart from God.
This seems to be a very specific use of the words exists and existence, could you explain?
God exists by himself and nothing else can exist except that God himself wills it to exist.
So are God and existence the same thing or separate?
-
What does the statement 'he is existence itself' mean?
That nothing exists apart from God.
This seems to be a very specific use of the words exists and existence, could you explain?
God exists by himself and nothing else can exist except that God himself wills it to exist.
So are God and existence the same thing or separate?
You're trying to lead into the answer you want but I've already given you the answer. Creation and creator are not to be confused yet nothing exists except that God himself will it to exist for nothing exists apart from God. You need to make the distinction between essence and energies.
http://tinyurl.com/otajuqf
Moderator: Long URL changed into smaller one to avoid page distortion.
-
What does the statement 'he is existence itself' mean?
That nothing exists apart from God.
This seems to be a very specific use of the words exists and existence, could you explain?
God exists by himself and nothing else can exist except that God himself wills it to exist.
So are God and existence the same thing or separate?
You're trying to lead into the answer you want but I've already given you the answer. Creation and creator are not to be confused yet nothing exists except that God himself will it to exist for nothing exists apart from God. You need to make the distinction between essence and energies.
http://tinyurl.com/otajuqf
SO YOU SAY!
For some pagans, myself included, the deities, gods and goddesses, are present in everything around us that is natural or made by man of natural materials.
They are as real to me as your Johnny-come-lately is to you!
-
I'm not trying to lead you into anything, ad-o, I'm just trying to understand. As a former Christian myself I would have said that God and the created are separate but that he is the creative energy that runs through all things. Is that what you are saying here? (not looked at your link yet)
-
The grammar in your link is atrocious, ad-o.
-
The grammar in your link is atrocious, ad-o.
It only works if you want to believe in that separation.
I don't - I believe that the deity is immanent!
-
The grammar in your link is atrocious, ad-o.
It only works if you want to believe in that separation.
I don't - I believe that the deity is immanent!
That sounds like you managed to get it to make sense, Owlswing.
-
The grammar in your link is atrocious, ad-o.
It only works if you want to believe in that separation.
I don't - I believe that the deity is immanent!
That sounds like you managed to get it to make sense, Owlswing.
No - it didn't! But ad_o would not have posted the link if it did not support the details that he posted!
It reminded me of a post by Vlad - lots of long words that are supposed to baffle the reader into thinking that the person who wrote it knows what they are talking about when, in fact, the oppposite is the case.
-
Exactly my thought as well - grandiosity that is devoid of any meaning.
Only this lot has bad grammar to boot.
-
That's the finest grade mince I've seen in a while.
-
It's really quite simple. I assume you understand the distinction that is being made between essence and energies? The distinction is necessary in order not to confuse creation with the creator. God is both transcendent and immanent.
-
Explain it in your own words, ad-o.
-
I just have.
-
No you didn't; you threw in 'essence' and 'energies' (framed as a question at that) without definition or explanation.
-
Yeah, we need to know how you understand 'energies' and 'essences', ad-o.
-
Yeah, we need to know how you understand 'energies' and 'essences', ad-o.
He probably doesn't - he probably, like Sassy and Hope, reads it in the book and swallows it whole without any real understanding of what it means.
This is the problem with a spoon-fed impersonal belief system like Christianity. regardless of whose version you are looking at!
-
Yeah, we need to know how you understand 'energies' and 'essences', ad-o.
He probably doesn't - he probably, like Sassy and Hope, reads it in the book and swallows it whole without any real understanding of what it means.
This is the problem with a spoon-fed impersonal belief system like Christianity. regardless of whose version you are looking at!
Oh ouch! ::)
Essence that is, substance, which in reference to God is spirit. Energies that is, God's actions withn creation from that which allows creation to exist in the first place to miracles, for God works theough his creation.
-
I'm glad we cleared that one up ::)
-
I'm glad we cleared that one up ::)
No we haven't.
Essence that is, substance, which in reference to God is spirit.
Spirit cannot be substance, spirit is unsubstantial.
Edited for typo 15:45 11.11.2014
-
I'm glad we cleared that one up ::)
No we haven't.
Essence that is, substance, which in reference to God is spirit.
Spirit cannot be substance, spirit is unsustantial.
Now there's a word!
-
Yeah, we need to know how you understand 'energies' and 'essences', ad-o.
He probably doesn't - he probably, like Sassy and Hope, reads it in the book and swallows it whole without any real understanding of what it means.
This is the problem with a spoon-fed impersonal belief system like Christianity. regardless of whose version you are looking at!
Oh ouch! ::)
Essence that is, substance, which in reference to God is spirit. Energies that is, God's actions withn creation from that which allows creation to exist in the first place to miracles, for God works theough his creation.
Right. ???
-
Spirit cannot be substance, spirit is unsubstantial.
Philosophically it most certainly can, hence in the Creed we confess that the Son is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.
-
Spirit cannot be substance, spirit is unsubstantial.
In philosophically it most certainly can, hence in the Creed we confess that the Son is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.
I like that on toast - not so keen on it with carrot sticks or celery, though.
-
<bites lip>
-
;)
-
Spirit cannot be substance, spirit is unsubstantial.
In philosophically it most certainly can, hence in the Creed we confess that the Son is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.
I like that on toast - not so keen on it with carrot sticks or celery, though.
......and apparently you love to dip your rusk into your posh.
-
......and apparently you love to dip your rusk into your posh.
I only do posts in English, Vlad.
-
......and apparently you love to dip your rusk into your posh.
I only do posts in English, Vlad.
Ok, Rusk- a staple part of Shakers diet along with finger food and petit filou.
Posh- Patronising 'baby talk' meaning porridge.